Skip to main content

Full text of "Nixon: The Man Behind The Mask"

See other formats

RICHARD NIXON: The Man Behind The Mask 

by Gary Allen 

Released by RareReactor 

Liberals Get The Action, 
Conservatives Get The Rhetoric 

While in a particularly expansive mood one day, Richard Nixon's 
Senate floor leader, the very Liberal Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, 
boasted to a reporter: "We [Liberals] get the action and the 
Conservatives get the rhetoric."' This yeasty admission of the Nixon 
Administration's Liberalism in action doubtless would have come as a 
distinct shock to most of the 32 million citizens who voted for Richard 
Milhous Nixon for President of the United States in 1968. They expected 
Conservative actions to follow the laudable Conservative rhetoric of 
the campaign. The Nixon campaign landed many a strong verbal clout on 
the snout of squishy-soft Liberalism, whose permissive policies at home 
and abroad had brought the country to the brink of a nervous breakdown 
from frustration, if not financial, moral, and military collapse. While 
stumping the hustings, candidate Nixon promised again and again "new 
leadership" that would restore law and order, stop aid and trade with 
our Communist enemies, terminate the ceaseless war in Vietnam, scuttle 
unworkable socialist spending programs, dash virulent inflation, 
restore fiscal sanity, stuff the genie of big government back into the 
bottle, and, in-general, "throw the rascals out." 

Liberal columnists, widely believed to be Mr. Nixon's implacable 
enemies, have seemed both surprised and highly pleased at the "New 
Nixon, " who gives the Conservatives the rhetoric and the Liberals the 
action. One of the tip-offs came even before the election in an amazing 
column by the late 

Ralph McGill, formerly a staunch enemy of Richard Nixon. McGill, editor 
of the Atlanta Constitution and a nationally syndicated columnist, was 
a member of the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations, called "the 
CFR, " otherwise known as "the invisible government" or the "Eastern 
Liberal Establishment." (The CFR will be dealt with in greater detail 
in Chapter Three.) McGill, one of America's most vocal anti-anti- 
Communists, wrote in a column titled "All Civilized Persons Are 
Indebted To Nixon": 

An important change has come to Richard Nixon. The nation, and, 
for that matter, civilized persons everywhere, are in his debt. 

Nixon has changed his once rigid views about the necessity to 
maintain relations and a dialogue with the Communist world, including 
Red China, when that now chaotic country has a government that can be 
responsive. He did so because the facts have changed. 

Nixon built his political career on opposition to Communism. He 
had made himself the darling of the Birch-type mentalities, and of all 
the various extreme right-wing nut organizations that carry on witch 
hunts and character assassination in the name of anti-Communism. 

The New Nixon policy was made public before his nomination at 
Miami. He said in a press conference that he had "revised" some of his 
earlier views, largely because the Communist world itself has shifted 
in new directions. 

Nixon suggested further that the era of "confrontation" with the 
Communist world has ended. It has been replaced, he believes, with an 
era of negotiations. 

Whoever is President, he said, in the next four and eight years, 
"must proceed on the assumption that negotiations with the Soviet 
world, negotiations eventually with the leaders of the next superpower, 

Communist China, must take place. This is a change that has come about, 
and therefore, your policy must change." 

Nixon said, with admirable candor, that his 1960 acceptance 
speech, with its inflexible position against any talks with the 
Communist world, "would be irrelevant to the problems of today." 

"As the facts change, " he said, "any intelligent man does change 
his approaches to the problems. It does not mean that he is an 
opportunist. It means only that he is a pragmatist . "2 

The "New Communists" proceeded to embarrass the "New Nixon" by 
shortly thereafter breaking their non-aggression treaty with Czecho- 
slovakia and invading that country to brutally crush an apparent move 
toward independence. 

Shortly after the election, Liberal columnists were gloating that 
Nixon could do more for Liberalism simply because he was a Republican 
who was widely believed to be a Conservative. Robert J. Donovan of the 
Los Angeles Times observed in an article titled "Nixon Will Protect the 
Center From the Left and Right": 

He knows he cannot make strides at home until he gets rid of the 
burden of the war. He has promised to end the war. His associates say 
he is aware that in order to do so he may have to make unpopular 
concessions that only a new President and only one who, like himself, 
feels safe against charges of being "soft on communism" would risk 

As one of his closest friends explained recently, "The American 
people know Dick Nixon wouldn't sell the country out to the 
Communists." Or as Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R.-N.Y.) was quoted as having 
said the other day, "I'm confident that Nixon will end the war ... if 
Humphrey would do what Nixon is going to do on Vietnam, Humphrey would 
be shot or impeached. Nixon will end the war. "3 

Widely syndicated Liberal columnist Sydney Harris was not exactly 
downcast at the thought of a Nixon Administration: 

It is probably better for the nation that Nixon was elected than 
Humphrey, for social realities will force Nixon to do pretty much the 
same things Humphrey would have done, but Nixon will encounter less 
bitterness and opposition than Humphrey would have 

Look magazine's Washington correspondent Richard Wilson wrote in 
his newspaper column: 

A rather impressive list has accumulated of things that are not 
going to be done in the Nixon administration: 

The Office of Economic Opportunity (poverty program) is not to be 

The 10 per cent income surtax is not to be dropped. 

The Johnson budget is not to be cut substantially. 

Southern public schools are not to be permitted to squirm out of 
ending segregation through freedom of choice plans. 

A significant rise in the rate of unemployment is not to be 
encouraged as a concomitant of arresting inflation. 

Consumer-protection activities are not to be abandoned. 

The "security gap" in national defense is not found to be as wide 
as it appeared last October. 

If such policy decisions seem at variance with Nixon's stance in 
the presidential campaign, it is because so many people had formed a 
different idea of what the Nixon administration would be like. 

If there is to be no significant change in budgetary policy, no 
significant change in tax policy, no significant change in economic 
policy, then much of what was said during the campaign can be 
classified as the usual political bombast. s 

Columnist Wilson noted that "the agony in Nixon's early days is 
among Republicans who think their legitimate interests aren't being 
protected, while the ecstasy is among Liberals and Democrats who have 
discovered that Richard Nixon isn't half as bad as they expected. "6 
Stewart Alsop, old warhorse of the Fabian Socialist Americans for 
Democratic Action (ADA) , told his Newsweek readers in a column titled 
"The, Demonsterization of Nixon": 

Something very important has happened during Richard M. Nixon's 
first month as President: a great many people who 

supposed or at least suspected that Mr. Nixon was a sort of human 
monster have discovered that he isn't. 

All these assorted Nixonophobes now find themselves puzzled and 
discomfited. For where is the Richard Nixon they so happily hated? 

They may find him again, of course - honeymoons always end. Yet 
the sudden, sharp fading of Nixonophobia seems to be more than a 
function of the usual Presidential honeymoon. It could be a basic and 
perhaps even a permanent change in public attitudes toward the new 
President .... 

It is interesting to speculate on the reasons for the change. For 
one thing, President Nixon, as a suspected monster, gets a lot of 
credit for not being a monster. He gets credit for not doing all sorts 
of things that a President Humphrey, for example, would have got no 
credit at all for not doing - not abandoning the cause of school 
integration; not instituting a witch-hunting "clean-out" of the State 
Department; not demanding "clear-cut superiority" in nuclear weapons as 
a condition of negotiating with the Russians. President Nixon, in 
short, gets credit for not doing things candidate Nixon hinted he might 
do . 

Later, Alsop was to joyously crown Mr. Nixon "The Great Pre- 
Emptor" : 

The President's basic political technigue is now entirely 
obvious. He appeases the right with reassuring rhetoric, conservative 
appointments and such gestures as the unleashing of Vice President 
Spiro T. Agnew and the veto of the HEW bill. At the same time, he 
busily pre-empts, purloins, or filches air the major issues of his 
natural enemies, the liberal Democrats. 

There are plenty of examples of the President in action in his 
role as The Great Pre-Emptor. A national minimum income was just 
burgeoning forth as a major liberal Democratic issue when the President 
snatched it away. The draft lottery bore the Kennedy brand before the 
President captured it, and so did tax reform. The "New Federalism" was 
the brainchild of Robert F. Kennedy, but it has now been legally 
adopted by the President. And so on. 8 

Since Mr. Alsop is a Liberal, he naturally found all this highly 
praiseworthy as he continued: 

. . . In short, Mr. Nixon has turned out to be a far better 
politician than most political journalists (again, including this one) 
thought him to be a year ago. He may turn out to be a better President, 
too. To be a good President it is first necessary to be a good 
politician. Moreover, the issues that Mr. Nixon has preempted from the 
liberals are good issues - they involve doing things that badly need to 
be done. Perhaps, to be fair, that is also a reason why The Great Pre- 
Emptor has pre-empted them. 

Alsop was also pleased that Conservatives are neutralized through 
this policy of giving the rhetoric to them while the Left gets the 
action: "The rhetoric has had a marvelously soothing effect on the 
Republican right; there has been hardly a peep from Senators Goldwater, 
Tower, Thurmond and company." After all, what can these men say? They 
went far out on a limb to support Mr. Nixon in 1968 and they are now in 
a highly embarrassing position. 

Few have gushed over the New Nixon as has the nationally 
syndicated columnist Roscoe Drummond, a member of the Council on 
Foreign Relations Establishment. Drummond began even before President- 
elect Nixon took office, by declaring RMN to be a "secret liberal": 

The most significant political fact of the hour is now so evident 
it can't be seriously disputed: 

President Richard M. Nixon is a "secret liberal." 

He may not welcome the description. He resists labels and sees 
himself as a pragmatist, a problem-solver - neither liberal nor 
conservative - who wants to do what needs to be done. 

But Nixon is already proving himself a liberal-in-action if not a 
liberal-in-theory - and this is what counts. 

The evidence: 

Lyndon Johnson initiated and Congress approved the largest volume 
of social legislation of any president in history. And Nixon prepares 
to carry forward every major Johnson measure. 

During the eight Eisenhower years 45 new welfare programs were 
passed. During the Eve Johnson years some 435 welfare programs were 
passed and Nixon is not proposing to dismantle 

them. He is proposing to build on them and his goal is to make sure 
they achieve their purposes more effectively. 

Finally, Nixon has committed his administration to a big open- 
ended increase in Social Security benefits by advocating that they be 
boosted regularly to match higher living costs. 

But the fact remains that Nixon is not going to disrupt, decrease 
or dismantle the vast, help-people, help-the-states programs he 
inherited from the Great Society any more than Dwight Eisenhower did 
those he inherited from the New Deal. 

Ike accepted the reform of the New Deal as part of the fabric of 
modern society and cites as his proudest, presidential achievement the 
extension of Social Security to cover more than 12 million more 
people . 9 

Six months later, after Mr. Nixon announced his Family Assistance 
Plan, a thinly disguised Guaranteed Annual Income, which he had opposed 
during the campaign, the dumbfounded Drummond was predicting that 
Richard Nixon, of all people, might go down in history as the FDR of 
the 1970s: 

Whatever happened to conservative Richard Nixon? 

Here he is in the lead for the most far-ranging, groundbreaking, 
daring social-welfare reform since the early years of the New Deal. 

The President has seized the initiative on the most crucially 
needed domestic reform and has stolen the best clothes of the 
Democratic liberals. 

Strange to contemplate but the time may come when people will 
think of Richard M. Nixon as the Republican Franklin D. Roosevelt of 
the 1970s! 

But none of this alters the fact that conservative Richard Nixon 
is acting to carry out an immensely liberal concept and liberal 

How liberal? If you define modern liberalism as a willingness to 
use the federal government to achieve major social ends, the 
President's new Program is very liberal .... 10 

Drummond also told his sophisticated Liberal readers in such 
papers as the notoriously Leftist Washington Post to ignore the fact 
that Democrats have to denounce Nixon as a Conservative for political 
purposes : 

Despite epithets from liberals, the record of the Nixon 
administration thus far is on the progressive side in both policy and 
action . 

It is much more midroad than conservative and perhaps even a 
little left of center. 

The labels don't matter. What does is whether the President is 
acting wisely and effectively. 

It is doubtful if Nixon's Democratic critics are doing themselves 
much good politically. It doesn't do the administration any harm to be 
called conservative by its opponents, particularly when it isn't very 
conservative. And the conservatives have no place to go except to 
Nixon. 1 1 

Drummond also bulldoggedly noted that Mr. Nixon on Vietnam, 
contrary to all past promises, has seized the Eugene McCarthy plank out 
of the 1968 Democratic National Convention: 

The areas of agreement between the responsible doves and 
President Nixon are far greater than many realize. 

This is revealed by two facts. 

All the leading Democratic doves voted for the minority Vietnam 
plank at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. 

Today Nixon is carrying out every provision of that plank and - 
at points - more. 

The dove-supported Democratic plank advocated "phased withdrawal" 
of all foreign troops from Vietnam. Richard Nixon has gone further . . 
. . 12 

Mary McGrory, Liberal femme fatale of the Washington Star, noted 
early in the game (in the February 11, 1969 issue) that loyal 
Republican Congressmen were in for short shrift: 

Innocently, [Republicans] assumed that they would have their pick 
of choice jobs for their friends and instant access to the White House. 
They are getting fewer plums and fewer calls .... The Republican 
members [of Congress] have not yet addressed themselves to the first 
policy moves of the President which seem likely to please the Americans 
for Democratic Action more than Strom Thurmond. 

Miss McGrory was also all atwitter at the fact that a Republican 
had done the unthinkable and appointed an officer of the ultra-Leftist 
Americans for Democratic Action, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as a 
Presidential advisor. She wrote: "Moynihan . . . knows that his basic 
idea about the poor, money, work and family is now on its way, 
respectable Republican doctrine at last." 13 

It was the Family Assistance Plan, drafted largely by Moynihan, 
that evoked the greatest surprise and the loudest cheers from the 
portside pontif icators . The Washington Star's Carl T. Rowan, a former 
JFK appointee, wrote: 

Imagine someone telling you 20 years ago that a Republican 
president would ask the federal government to guarantee a minimum 
annual income to every family. 

You would have laughed your informant out of town. 

Especially if he told you that this Republican would advocate a 
welfare program that covered 25 million Americans instead of 10 million 
and cost $10 billion instead of $5 billion. 

Yet, after months of debate within his administration, President 
Nixon went on nationwide television to make just such a revolutionary 
proposal to the American people, la 

Earlier Rowan had pointed out: "Richard M. Nixon is clearly not 
what he said he was, not what Democrats feared he was, nor even what 
Republicans hoped he was during the presidential campaign. 15 

Even the New Republic, for fifty years the voice of intellectual 
socialism, was gleeful to welcome Nixon and his 
Family Assistance Plan to the ranks of the creeping socialists: 

. . . President Nixon informed the Neanderthal men that he had 
accepted and would assert creeping socialism, the principle of the 
Federal Government guaranteeing a minimum income to all disadvantaged 
Americans. 16 

Even Joseph Kraft, probably the most far-out Leftist among 
syndicated columnists, has had words of praise for RMN ' s Liberalism. 
Kraft, a member of the Establishment's Council on Foreign Relations and 
a man who recently praised Lenin as having "transmitted to the 
Communist world the ideals of eguality and progress and peace," 1' was 
particularly impressed by the President's hypocrisy in repudiating 
campaign promises: 

. . . the Administration's slow start has made it possible to fob 
gently off into oblivion some of the least enlightened things said and 
done during the campaign. Attaining nuclear superiority over the 
Russians has been replaced by going for "nuclear sufficiency." Crude 
notions of trading a little more unemployment for a little less 
inflation are only an echo. So is non-enforcement of the laws against 
segregation. And "law and order" sounds like a guaint slogan of the 
same vintage as "54-40 or Fight" and "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too." 18 

Rank and file Republicans would be most shocked at the consistent 
praise heaped upon Mr. Nixon by the New York Times' house savant, James 
Reston. Reston, also a member of the CFR, is regarded as the official 
"unofficial spokesman" for the Eastern Liberal Establishment, now that 
Walter Lippmann has retired after fifty years of laundering the minds 

of the American public. Reston praised the President for "wiping out 
the old political stereotypes of Richard Nixon the partisan politician, 
the darling of the professional anti-communists." 19 
Reston later wrote a column congratulating the President, 
after his first five months in office, on "a good beginning." Among the 
things that particularly pleased the Liberal sage of the Potomac were 
Nixon's appointments, which he termed neither "political nor 
ideological." Reston described these men as "competent modern 
pragmatists, who may not be very imaginative, but who are more 
interested in the facts and the national interests, than in the 
conservative theories or political interests of the Republican party." 

This naturally ignored the fact that most people in voting for 
Mr. Nixon did so believing that they were voting for Conservative 
theories to cure the disastrous effects of the Liberal theories that 
had held sway for nearly forty years. Of course, many Republicans fail 
to understand why Democratic Administrations have the privilege of 
being partisan and of building the Democratic Party at every turn, 
while the Republicans must be constantly non-partisan and always make 
concessions in the direction of the Liberals. 

In the same column Reston told his more sophisticated readers 
that the name of the game is "The Conservatives get the rhetoric, the 
Liberals get the action" : 

Nixon has, of course, said a lot of things that please the hawks, 
the Republican conservatives, and the authoritarians who want to be 
militant in Vietnam and on the campuses and in the cities, but he has 
acted prudently, and stuck to his priorities on ending the war, 
controlling the inflation and moving toward an accommodation with 
Moscow on the control of military arms and the reduction of military 
budgets . 

Even his support of the antiballistic missile system, which 
looked so hawkish, was probably a move toward an arms control 
accommodation with the Soviet Union .... 

Reston also provided us with an analysis - in this case an 
accurate one - of why the country constantly moves to the Left, 
regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office: 

President Eisenhower acquiesced in all the New Deal reforms the 
Republicans opposed in the 30s and 40s, and [so did] Nixon as his 
deputy. He came to office as a minority president, accused of being a 
war-monger who was indifferent to the internal social and economic 
problems of the cities and the races, but he is now arguing for peace, 
and social justice - talking like a conservative but acting like a 
progressive . 

Arthur Schlesinger Sr. makes the same point in his study of "The 
Tides of National Politics." The chief liberal gains of the past, he 
says, "generally remain on the statute books when the conservatives 
recover power . . . liberalism grows constantly more liberal, and by 
the same token, conservatism grows constantly less conservative . . . 


This may not be true of the conservatives like George Wallace who 
are out of power, but it seems to be true of Nixon. He is zig-zagging 
to the left. 21 

If Liberals like Reston can convince Conservatives that it is 
somehow ungentlemanly ("you can't turn the clock back") to undo the 

damage done by previous Leftist administrations, then the Republicans 
are doomed to meekly promising to administer socialism more 
efficiently. This, of course, is exactly what is happening and the 
Liberals love it. Observed Reston: 

All the President's ambiguous and even contradictory statements 
of foreign and domestic policy have been analyzed here with the 
greatest care. One day he is saying the Vietnam war may be one of our 
"finest hours," and the next he is withdrawing American troops from the 
battlefield. One day he is submitting to the conservative instincts of 
the American Medical Association or placating the southern senators on 
the school integration guidelines, and the next he is supporting 
welfare state policies he had opposed over the last 20 years. 22 

Like other Liberals, Reston was ecstatic over Nixon's guaranteed 
annual income plan: 

The main thing about President Nixon's proposals for dealing 
with poverty in America is that he recognizes the government's 
responsibility for removing it. He has been denouncing the "welfare 
state" for 20 years, but he is now saying that poverty in America in 
the midst of spectacular prosperity is intolerable and must be wiped 
out .... 

A Republican president has condemned the word "welfare, " 
emphasized "work" and "training" as conditions of public assistance, 
suggested that the states and the cities be given more federal money to 
deal with their social and economic problems, but still comes out in 
the end with a policy of spending more money for relief of more poor 
people than the welfare state Democrats ever dared to propose in the 
past . 

This is beginning to be the story of American politics .... 

. . . And now on the most controversial guestion of domestic 
policy, he changes the rhetoric, the philosophy and the administration, 
but proposes more welfare, more people on public assistance, which will 
take more federal funds than any other president in the history of the 
Republic .... 

Nevertheless, Nixon has taken a great step forward. He has 
cloaked a remarkably progressive welfare policy in conservative 
language .... 23 

Reston concluded this column by claiming that Nixon believes that 
Americans favor the Marxian concept of redistributing the wealth: 

He has repudiated his own party's record on social policy at home 
and even his own hawkish attitudes abroad, and this tells us something 
both about the President and the country. 

For he has obviously concluded that the American people are for 
peace abroad and for a more decent distribution of wealth at home, and 
the chances are that this will prove to be both good policy and good 
politics . 

Actually most Americans realize that by "peace abroad," Mr. 
Reston means further appeasement of the Communists' global power grab, 
and that the poor can only be helped through gainful employment, which 
the plan promises, but which nobody seriously thinks it will deliver. 
The other side 

of the "welfare state" coin at home is the acceptance of a softer 
attitude toward Communism abroad, on the basis that it is somehow 
changing and has mellowed. Reston wrote in the August 6, 1969 Long 
Beach Press-Telegram: 

The tide is going out. The President is turning around, waving to 
the right one day and to the left the next - but the overwhelming 
impression in the capitol is that he is consciously zig-zagging toward 
peace in Vietnam and an accommodation with Moscow .... 

Washington is more sensitive than New York or other places to the 
general direction of Presidents and politics. It is more interested in 
the over-all tendencies of Presidents than in the day to day White 
House statements, and it seems to feel that Nixon is now engaged in a 
delicate retreat from his hawkish and anti-Communist record of the 
past . 

By September 30, 1970, Mr. Reston, in what may have been an 
effort to get Liberals to look at what Nixon does and not what he says, 
was telling readers of the Press-Telegram that Mr. Nixon was 
desperately attempting to "liberate himself from his conservative and 
anti-Communist past": 

. . . It is true that Nixon rose to power as an anti-Communist, a 
hawk on Vietnam, and an opponent of the New Deal, but once he assumed 
the resonsibilities of the presidency, he began moving toward peace in 
Vietnam, coexistence with the Communist world of Moscow and Peking, and 
despite all his political reservations, even toward advocacy of the 
welfare state at home. 

Nixon's policies toward Social Security, welfare payments, arms 
control and coexistence with the Communist world are quite different 
from the policies he supported when he was a congressman, a senator and 
vice president under Eisenhower. He has been struggling between his 
political prejudices of the past and his responsibilities as President, 
and he has moved in the last two years toward an accommodation with his 
old adversaries both at home and abroad. 

This has not been easy. He is still torn between his old 
anti-Communist cold war instincts and his new presidential duties. He 
has been arguing for arms control, he has been supporting the 
nonprolif eration of nuclear weapons, he has been supporting the 
reconciliation of the West Germans and the Soviets, he has been 
approving .more trade between the Western and the Communist worlds - 
most of the time against the prejudices of most of the conservative 
Republicans who supported his bid for the ' presidency in the first 
place . 

The likelihood is that Nixon is going to be President for the 
next six years. He is at a critical point in his career. He has been 
trying to liberate himself from his conservative and antiCommunist 
past, and work toward a progressive policy at home and a policy of 
reconciliation with the Communists abroad .... 

Although there were hints during the 1968 campaign that this was 
what Mr. Nixon was up to, only the most sophisticated conservatives, 
who were familiar with Mr. Nixon's background as a sometime member of 
the Eastern Liberal Establishment's CFR, could interpret the message. 
Most of the campaign rhetoric dealt with strengthening America in its 
dealings with the Communists and a casti= gation of the policies of 
past inadequate leadership, which had led us from one disaster to 

another. But in 1970 Reston was telling us : "... it would probably 
be wise to follow the administration's slogan: " Watch what we do rather 
than what we say. ' " 24 

Even David Broder of the Washington Post, just about the most 
Leftwing daily this side of the Iron Curtain, has had praise for Nixon. 
Broder, who describes himself as a "radical liberal," chastises .Mr. 
Nixon for not having brought order to the federal government's chaotic 
bureaucracy : 

. . . if we are fated to be governed by conservatives, this isn't 
the worst set we could have, by a long shot. 

They are rather stuffy and occasionally sour, but on the 
substantive guestions they're not nearly as bad as they might be. We 
could have conservatives who are hell-bent on fattening the military; 
these men have put the Pentagon on its leanest rations in 
years. We, might have conservatives determined to remove communism from 
every village in Vietnam; Mr. Nixon wants mainly to get out, though he 
sometimes scares you out of your wits with a Cambodian operation in the 
process . 

The harshest sustainable indictment of these Republicans is that 
they lack the one virtue conservatives are supposed to be born with: 
competence as managers. Despite three major reorganizations and a 
massive increase in the White House staff, this Administration is still 
a "pitiful, helpless giant," stumbling over its own feet. Its record in 
handling Congress, the economy, the campuses and the other trouble 
spots is consistently one of arriving breathless, shortly after the 
crisis has occurred. 25 

Those whom we have quoted (with the exception of Mary McGrory) 
represent the elite, the crime de la crime of the Eastern Liberal 
Establishment's coterie of intellectual commentators. They obviously 
approve of Mr. Nixon and are trying to tell their readers to forget 
what Mr. Nixon says in order to pacify those who voted for him, and pay 
attention to what he does. This is also good advice for Conservatives. 
While the Washington press corps of hack correspondents have 
traditionally neither liked nor trusted Richard Nixon, they are blinded 
by pass6 stereotypes and their own knee-jerk Liberalism. The Drummonds, 
Alsops, Krafts, Broders and Restons are in an entirely different class. 
They serve as a transmission belt for the Liberal elite in and out of 
the government, the foundations, the communications industry and the 
academy. The fact that f oaming-at-the-mouth college radicals, psychotic 
black militants, neurotic professors, and politically motivated Liberal 
Democrats continue to damn Mr. Nixon as what they consider a "right- 
wing-capitalist-pigexploiting-imperialist " serves only to enhance and 
protect Mr. Nixon's reputation with the so-called silent majority. It 
doesn't hurt him, it is a necessity to keep those who voted for the 
President from realizing that candidate Nixon and President Nixon are 
as different as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 

It is not, only the philosopher-king intellectuals of the 
Establishment who have noted that "Shifty Dick" has shifted Left. Even 
the publications in the "middle of the road" (a position which has been 
shifting Leftward for going on four decades) have taken notice. An eye- 
opening article in the Dow Jones Corporation's National Observer of 
July 21, 1969, titled "Two Positions: Liberal and Less Liberal - The 
Conservatives Find Themselves Boxed In, " stated that all the 
Conservatives could expect from the Nixon Administration was 

"meaningless baubles." National Observer correspondent Jude Wanniski 

The most important thing to understand about the ideological 
churning in the Capitol is that it is taking place within an extremely 
narrow range of debate. And that range has been circumscribed by 
congressional liberals of both parties. 

Unlike earlier conflicts of ideology in Washington, there is now 
no fundamental dispute over commitments, only a narrow haggling over 
technigue. There are artificial "liberal" positions and "less liberal" 
positions, with the pulling and hauling largely between Senate 
Democrats and the White House, but the conservatives have been 
foreclosed from debate. Because the liberals have been surprisingly 
efficient in organizing the loyal opposition, Congressional 
conservatives have no choice but to join in support of the somewhat 
"less liberal" White House .... Here we have Sen. Strom Thurmond, who 
would like an abrupt halt to all federal desegregation moves, lightly 
applauding the new approach to school-desegregation guidelines because 
they would give a few school districts a little extra time. Here are 
other conservatives, Sen. John Tower of Texas among them, approving the 
Nixon voting-rights plan because it applies to the nation a civil- 
rights formula that now applies only to the South. If Mr. Nixon lately 
has been seen in the company of conservatives it is only because they 
have moved onto liberal terrain in order to support him. 

Conservatives who looked forward to abolishing the Office of 
Economic Opportunity have found themselves in the odd position of 
promoting renaissance of the agency along new lines, the liberals 
defending the status guo. Old guard Republicans who last year 
thought razing was too good for the Job Corps camps this year 
passionately defend the Administration's decision to keep half the 
camps open .... The conservatives want to merely double the federal 
commitment to feeding the poor. The liberals want to triple the 
commitment. On the entire range of domestic issues there is scarcely 
one on which conservatives are not occupying ideological ground that 
was held by liberals only a year or two ago .... The "conservative" 
campus-unrest bill that was blocked in the House Education and Labor 
Committee last month was so mild as to be meaningless, but as mild as 
it was the legislation was opposed by the President .... On foreign- 
policy issues, too, the debate falls within a narrow range, the old 
guard conservatives moving to traditional liberal terrain to support 
Mr. Nixon. The President will visit Communist Rumania in the kind of 
east-west bridge-building that President Kennedy and President Johnson 
talked about. But here are the liberals criticizing the trip because it 
might upset Moscow. And here comes the Old Guard - the Mundts, Towers, 
Hruskas, Dirksens - galloping to Mr. Nixon's defense. 

The conservatives seem comfortable enough arguing for Mr. Nixon's 
Safeguard anti-ballistic missile system, but even here the ground has 
shifted. A year ago the Richard Russells and Strom Thurmonds wanted 
nothing less than an ABM net to protect American cities against attack 
while many liberals would have considered the Safeguard defense of the 
U.S. nuclear deterrents a triumph of reason and peace .... Nowhere, 
it seems, has the spectrum shifted more than in the Vietnam debate. 
Senators who two years ago were still talking about bombing Hanoi and 
Haiphong are pushing disengagement. Sen. John Stennis of Mississippi, 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, only eight months ago was 
still not ruling out the possibility of employing nuclear weapons in 

Vietnam. Now he is endorsing the enclave theory of Gen. James Gavin, a 
theory which seemed a panacea to doves in 1967 .... 

Perhaps the liberals should be happier with this condition than 
they are. But in fact they seem more frustrated than they ever were in 
the Johnson era. As much ground as they cover in seeking an issue, Mr. 
Nixon follows, yanking the Old Guard with him. 

But at least the liberals should feel pride of authorship, 
serving the nation well in leading the loyal opposition as vigorously 
as they have. If they had been in disarray, unable to bring forceful 
pressures on the White House for necessary policy changes at 
home and abroad, Mr. Nixon would have been forced to move even more 
cautiously than he has. 

The Wall Street Journal, which tries to stay in the middle of the 
road, has consistently called attention, usually approvingly, to Mr. 
Nixon's "Liberalism in action." Journal correspondent Alan Otten wrote 
early in the game on March 4, 1969: "... There will clearly be no 
big cutbacks in Government spending; in fact, all signs are that 
spending will rise pretty much on Lyndon Johnson's schedule . . . . " 

Otten quotes an unnamed White House staffer that "the Nixon 
Administration talks quite conservatively much of the time, yet ends up 
acting with comparative liberalism." Otten also notes that a Republican 
who has a Conservative image can get away with things no Liberal could. 
"... The same proposal would sound like another alarming step down 
the road to state socialism" coming from the Democrats, writes Otten. 26 
This is, of course, the very road Mr. Nixon is travelling, and the fact 
that a Republican is now leading the way serves to neutralize much of 
the opposition to it. Conservative correspondent Walter Trohan of the 
Chicago Tribune sadly wrote on October 15, 1969: 

Conservatives should be realistic enough to recognize that this 
country is going deeper into socialism and will see expansion of 
federal power, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. The only 
comfort they may have is that the pace will be slower under Richard M. 
Nixon than it might have been under Hubert H. Humphrey. 

Conservatives are going to have to recognize that the Nixon 
administration will embrace most of the socialism of the Democratic 
administrations, while professing to improve it ... . 

Conservative acquiescence in the basic theory of Marxism that 
"socialism is inevitable" seals the doom of liberty in America. 

Even such a staunch and long-time Nixon advocate as Trohan, who 
is the Chicago Tribune's senior political writer, has confessed in 
print that, "more in sorrow than in anger, this commentator is 
beginning to find himself puzzled by Richard M. Nixon's start in the 
Presidency." He added: "There would seem to be some cause for 
uneasiness." One thing that made Trohan uneasy was "... the praise 
Nixon heaped on the State Department staff when he called on his round 
of federal establishments. No less enthusiastic praise has been heaped 
on others of the entrenched Democratic party. This also contrasted 
sharply with his call for change during the campaign." 27 , 

Columnist Ralph de Toledano, an erstwhile Nixon supporter who 
once wrote a laudatory biography of the President, complained: 

While President Nixon has basked in the approving smiles of the 
liberal establishment, a cloud once no bigger than a man's left hand 

has begun to grow darker on Washington's political horizon. That cloud 
has a storm potential which could badly rock Mr. Nixon's ship as he 
moves toward the 1970 and 1972 elections. 

It is no longer possible to ignore this, or not to comment on its 
significance. It adds up to one important fact: The conservatives won 
the election for Richard Nixon - and they are losing the election to 
him. It can no longer be denied that those to the right of center 'who 
carried November 6 for Mr. Nixon have gotten less than the back of his 
hand for their effort. 

Obviously the spoils are going to those who did their worst, or 
best, to see Nixon's opponents triumph. In fact, a kind of political 
alliance between the present administration and the anti-Nixon 
coalition seems to be in the making. 28 

A nervous James Jackson Kilpatrick, a former editor of the 
Richmond News Leader, gave as his tentative judgment that "Mr. Nixon, 
thus far, disappoints." What concerned the columnist most was that: 

Mr. Nixon has not cleaned house. To be sure, a new cabinet is in 
office, but what of that? Bureaucracy is a kind of root vegetable; what 
counts is underground. It is at the third and fourth levels that 
memorandums are drafted, regulations enforced, speeches prepared, and 
policies shaped. If Mr. Nixon fails to dig down to these levels, and to 
put in new men with new ideas, he will harvest the same old thing. 29 

William Loeb of the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader didn't take 
what he thought was Nixon's double-cross quite so gracefully. Loeb 
accused Nixon of "throwing it away" and noted, quoting an informant, a 
long-time Washington observer: 

"Had Mr. Nixon and his cabinet officers exposed the wrongdoing of 
the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations in the various departments and 
in the branches of the government in Washington - and throughout the 
world - President Nixon could have consolidated himself in office and 
built the Republican party up so it would be strong for years to come. 

"Instead," our friend concluded, "Mr. Nixon is attempting a 
course of action which never in the history of politics or government 
has been successful. He is favoring his enemies and offending his 
friends . " 30 

By January 24, 1970, Human Events, the staunch Conservative 
weekly newsletter from Washington, which vociferously supported Mr 
Nixon in 1968, had itself become largely disillusioned with the 
President's actions. Surveying the scene after one year, the paper 

. . . it seems to us that the President ignored most of his own 
rhetoric during the first year. Instead of ruthlessly examining 
existing domestic legislation and eliminating the unnecessary, he kept 
all the Kennedy-Johnson programs, called for increased funding of them 
in some instances and even dreamed up a new welfare scheme which he 
acknowledges will cost more than the existing welfare set-up. 

The President can be seen embracing the views of liberal 
leprechaun Daniel Moynihan one morning and then that afternoon siding 
with the conservative Arthur Burns. Nixon condemns the anti-poverty 
program as a waste, but then pushes for its extension for at least two 
years. He permits Atty. Gen. Mitchell to lobby for the Whitten anti- 
school-busing amendment in the House, but when it passes, to and 

behold, he benches Mitchell and suits up Finch, who sinks it in the 
Senate .... 

It has become a truism under Liberalism that old subsidies never 
die, and, as Human Events pointed out, Nixon has made "no effort - no 
effort at all - to roll back the bureaucracy. Indeed some observers 
might conclude there was an effort to entrench established programs 
[emphasis in original]." Administrations come and go, while millions of 
government workers go right on folding, spindling, and mutilating. As 
the Chicago Tribune observed, guoting the French proverb, "The more it 
changes, the more it remains the same." 

Among the most articulate Conservative critics of Mr. Nixon has 
been the Republican Battle Line, the publication of the American 
Conservative Union. In its February-March 1969 issue, Battle Line 
bluntly told its readeis with regard to Nixon's appointments: "Slowly 
but surely it has finally dawned on Republican party regulars across 
the nation that they have been taken." The non-partisan approach to 
filling appointments was a convenient excuse for retaining Democratic 
holdovers and moving Liberal Democrats into important slots. This is 
not exactly what Republicans had been led to expect. According to 
Battle Line: 

. . . candidate Nixon admitted publicly, as when he spoke to 
Republican delegates in caucus at Miami Beach last August, that one of 
the greatest failures of the Eisenhower administration was the complete 
lack of White House action in building up the Republican Party 
organization. It appears that GOP history not only repeats itself, it 
stutters badly. 

Later, in June 1970, Battle Line was to note of Mr. Nixon's own 
personal staff: 

. . . Perusing an organizational chart of the White House staff, 
the traditional Republican is struck by the presence of so few avowed 
conservatives in any capacity, and those few are assigned non- 
policymaking jobs .... 

Battle Line in February had warned that the Administration was 
straying away from its traditional role as the Conservative party: 

Since its founding the Republican Party has generally held itself 
out to be the responsible party concerning national economic policy. 
The Republicans have fought the "budget busting" Democrats who in their 
profligacy "tax, spend and elect." Limited government, balanced 
budgets, lower taxes have always been GOP watch words. That all may be 
changing now. 

Concerning Nixon's domestic policies, the American Conservative 
Union concluded in the June issue of Battle Line: 

One should start with the obvious historical premise that almost 
every major domestic policy theme the President has adopted during his 
term of office has favored not just the liberal side, but at times, the 
ultra-liberal. Nixon has heartily embraced welfare programs that would 
have made Dwight Eisenhower blush. He has championed big spending to 
the tune of billions and 

budget cuts in name only. One of the largest increases ever in the 
national debt has just passed the House and the Nixon budget, designed 

as a model of fiscal rectitude, has drowned in a swirl of red ink and 
inflation . 

In February of that same year (1970) the ACU newsletter had 

Not only does Nixon seek new ways to spend Federal tax money, he 
has greatly increased spending for programs started by Kennedy and 
Johnson. Secretary of HEW Finch's department will 

get $6 billion more than the $52 billion it spent last year, although 
all but $1 billion of this results from increases already written into 
law - Social Security boosts, welfare, Medicare, etc. Nevertheless, 
another billion dollars goes to HEW. "Considering the tight budget," 
said an HEW official, "we did very well." 

It should be remembered that the vast majority of Republican 
Senators and Congressmen wholeheartedly opposed these Kennedy-Johnson 
Socialist programs when they were originally before Congress. As Battle 
Line remarked: 

If it were not so tragic it would seem humorous - a Republican 
Administration tossing away billions of tax dollars for socialistic 
schemes that make the New Deal look like a penny ante game .... 

The Conservative Republican group also pointed out that the Party 
was abandoning, particularly with reference to Vietnam, its traditional 
anti-Communist position, a position once championed by Richard Nixon 
himself. Battle Line observed in December 1969: 

What worries many is that the President may have abandoned even a 
remote intention of winning this costly struggle against Communism; 
that our goal of victory has been replaced with withdrawal and 
acceptance of defeat. If that is so, all that remains is to play out 
the traditional Asian game of saving face. 

In the Nixon Administration "appearances are everything, " 
concluded Battle Line in August 1969. The Conservatives get the 
rhetoric .... In June 1970 Battle Line pointed out: 

All this is not to say that the words have not been there. 
Between his [Nixon's] own milder utterings and the conservativesounding 
rhetoric of Vice President Agnew, most Republicans have been able to 
assuage their consciences with the vacant 

thought that "they sure do sound good." As we've said many times 
before, conservatives get the words, liberals get the action. 

Nixon's "New Leadership" has virtually removed the Conservative 
viewpoint from the congressional spectrum. The August 1969 Battle Line 
mournfully noted: 

The truth is that President Nixon's advocacy of all sorts of 
liberal domestic and foreign policies seems to have foreclosed 
conservatives from debate. Many conservative Republicans in Congress, 
especially in the House, have adopted what has now become the 
President's own standard operating procedure; they talk conservative 
but go along with the liberalism the President has been espousing more 
and more each week. The vote on the surtax proposal found many 

Republicans reversing themselves as they supported the President's 
back-turning on a campaign issue. Demands for "unity" do wonders as 
more and more legislators follow their President down the liberal road 
in spite of prior conservative records and campaign promises in the 
past elections. 

Political commentators from Left, Right, and that nonexistent 
ideological position known as the "Center" all agree that the Nixon 
Administration is far more Liberal than it pretended it would be during 
the 1968 campaign, that Conservatives receive only "meaningless 
baubles;" and that the administration talks Conservative and acts 
Liberal. The Nixon Administration, moving Leftward, has pulled the 
Republican Party with it. 

The head of the American Conservative Union, Congressman John 
Ashbrook of Ohio, has pointed out that the Nixon Administration is 
using the excuse of "party unity" to high-pressure Congressmen into 
supporting increased government spending and power. Ashbrook stated: 

A few months after a hard-fought and close national election, it 
appears that some Republican leaders would make you believe that it is 
a guestion of "not supporting" the President or the 

party when you vote against him when he fails to carry out his campaign 
promises. I will support him steadfastly in his efforts to bring about 
the changes he promised the American people. I will just as vigorously 
oppose him if he endeavors to go in the opposite direction. I am not 
one of those Republicans - and they are apparently in the majority - 
who could view with alarm under Johnson last year and point with pride 
to the same thing under President Nixon this year. There are always 
changing factors to consider but some things are clearly central and 
basic to our Republican philosophy. If as a part of our basic 
philosophy we opposed something last year, it should still be wrong 
this year. If it was right last year, it should be right this year. 31 

But apparently many Republicans have decided Sam Rayburn was 
right when he said, "To get along, go along." Most Republican 
Congressmen have gone along in what Republican Battle Line refers to as 
"legislative amnesia." Battle Line in October 1969 said that: 

. . . the Republican Party in Congress, long a bastion for 
conservatism, seems to be suffering from legislative amnesia. GOP 
leaders don't lead and their members, for the most part, seem paralyzed 
by the presence of a Republican in the White House. Congressmen with 
long voting records based on sound GOP conservative principles now 
forgotten have followed like sheep as the Nixon Administration has 
proposed new legislative confirmation for many liberal Democrat 
programs first enacted under Kennedy and Johnson. 

The political proof is in the voting. The effects of the go- 
along-to-get-along, party-unity-above-principle policy has shown up in 
the voting records of Republican Congressmen. The Washington Star of 
February 12, 1970, reported: 

Americans for Constitutional Action, whose ratings of 
congressional voting records are freguently relied upon as a measure of 
conservative influence in the House and Senate, says there has been "a 
distinct drop" in conservatism in both houses, particularly among 
Republicans .... 

In a statement accompanying the ratings, ACA President Charles A. 
McManus said: 

"There is no question that we are disappointed at the ratings 
received by a number of members of Congress, mostly Republicans, and 
particularly as the new ratings fall far below the high-water mark 
achieved in the ACA ratings by the conservative members of Congress 
covering the final session (1968) of the liberal Johnson 
administration. " 

ACA President McManus further stated: 

The new figures revealed that many conservative Republicans have 
taken positions on rollcall votes contrary to their former position on 
similar legislation, some for the first time in their legislative 
career. Their voting records in 1969 reveal support of some liberal 
Kennedy-Johnson Administration programs continued by the Nixon 
Administration. 32 

The extent to which many Republican Congressmen who would have 
fought Hubert Humphrey tooth and nail have been neutralized by the 
Nixon Administration is revealed by the ACA tabulations. The 
Conservative voting indices of numerous GOP lawmakers dropped 
precipitously. For example, the late Congressman James Utt, a long-time 
champion of Conservatism through thick and thin, through vice and sin, 
had a cumulative Conservative voting record with the ACA of ninety-five 
per cent. His record in the 91st Congress, believe it or not, was 
sixty-seven per cent. This is an increase from voting Liberal five per 
cent of the time to voting Liberal nearly thirty-five per cent of the 
time - an increase of almost seven hundred per cent. The voting records 
of other California Republican Congressmen were typical of the 
increasing Liberalism and decreasing Conservatism of GOP legislators 
across the country. Don Clausen fell from seventy-nine to fifty-nine 
per cent; Charles S. Gubser, from seventy-two to forty per cent; 
William S. Maillard, from fifty-three to twenty-nine per cent; Robert 
Mathias, from seventy-one to forty-seven percent; Burt Talcott, from 
eighty to forty-seven percent; Charles Teague, from eighty to fifty per 
cent; Charles Wilson, from eightytwo to fifty-four per cent; and Craig 
Hosmer, from seventyfive to fifty per cent. 

Concerning the disastrous effects of the Nixon Administration on 
GOP voting records, Battle Line stated: 

Nowhere has the President's liberalism had a more depressing 
result than among Republicans in Congress. Congressional Quarterly in 
its 1969 year-end study of the voting habits of congressional 
Republicans found a decided move to the left. Most of the Nixon 
congressional victories did not result from the traditional 
conservative coalition of a majority of the GOP plus the bloc of 
southern Democrats. Rather Nixon most often won with a liberal- 
dominated coalition including Eastern GOP members, many Democrats 
outside the South plus just enough "normally" conservative Republicans 
who are willing to go along with liberal bills because the President 
wants them. 33 

David Broder, writing in the Washington Post said: 

This fact shows most clearly in the figures on individual 
members' support of the President. Within each party the strongest 

support for the Nixon program was the East . . . [although] high on the 
list of his Democratic backers were such liberals as Democratic 
National Committee Chairman Fred Harris of Oklahoma and Rep. Morris K. 
Udall of Arizona. Rep. Peter Frelinghuysen, Republican of New Jersey, 
another liberal, led all House Republicans in support of the President 
. . . and the Republican foes of the President were the ultra- 
conservatives in the House led by none other than Rep. H.R. Gross of 
Iowa, who voted against the Republican President 64% of the time. 34 

Battle Line commented further: 

Interestingly by comparison, the 1969 annual conservative ratings 
by Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) gave Rep. Frelinghuysen, 
Nixon's most freguent GOP supporter, a rating of 

only 20% conservative. Rep. Gross, Nixon's most freguent GOP opponent, 
rates 100% conservative with ACA. 3s 

In other words, the Nixon Administration has proven to be an 
absolute disaster in the fight against socialism at home and Communism 
abroad. The Nixon Administration, for all its campaign promises and 
patriotic Conservative rhetoric, is not part of the solution, it is 
part of the problem. Grass-roots Republicans and GOP Congressmen must 
now swallow their pride and realize that they have been conned by a 
smoothtalking automobile salesman from Whittier, and must heed St. 
Paul's recommendation to the Ephesians: "Follow not a multitude to do 
evil. " 

The UN-Free Agent 

It must seem a great irony to many that as the Nixon 
Administration moves Left, the country as a whole is moving Right. That 
this is true is attested by the fact that the President often resorts 
to Conservative rhetoric and uses Vice President Spiro Agnew as a tool 
to placate Conservative sentiment in the nation. 

On November 5, 1968, over 73 million Americans tramped to the 
polls and elected Richard Nixon President with 43 per cent of the vote. 
On this basis America's powerful Liberal pundits and social savants 
announced in a shrill chorus that Mr. Nixon was a minority President, 
and that in order to govern properly he should form a sort of coalition 
government to include "the alienated urban poor and the dissident 
youth." When John Kennedy won a sgueaker over Nixon in 1960, thanks to 
civic-minded voters from the Great Beyond in Chicago and Texas, these 
same soothsayers trumpeted that the returns were a "mandate" for the 
march to a New Frontier of the Left. Not one southpaw scribe suggested 
that Richard Nixon undertake a "dialogue, " much less seek a coalition 
government, with the alienated, disaffected, and dissident ten million 
who had put their X on the ballot beside the name of George Corley 
Wallace. Unlike the Black Nationalists and New Lefties, the ten million 
Wallace supporters were deemed to be beyond the political and 
ideological pale - awful creatures to be isolated and treated as 
lepers . 

The Liberal pundits ignored the fact that Nixon and Wallace 
polled a combined 57 per cent of the vote, which constituted the 
greatest four-year shift of voter sentiment against an incumbent party 
in the nation's history. Led by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the Democrats 
got 61 per cent of the vote against Barry Goldwater. Four years later 
they were swamped when more than 18 per cent of the electorate changed 
their minds. The Nixon-Wallace 57 per cent represented a clear 
Conservative majority. This, of course, makes it all the more strange 
that the President should prove to be a Liberal in action. 

It is certainly not that the President is unaware of the meaning 
of the 1968 contest, for one of his campaign assistants has delivered 
to him an exhaustive breakdown of national voting moods and patterns. 
Kevin Phillips, Mr. Nixon's principal "vote patterns" and "trends" 
analyst and Special Assistant to Nixon campaign manager John Mitchell 
during the campaign, assembled the results of his study in a book, The 
Emerging Republican Majority. The conclusion of Mr. Phillips that 
Conservativism is the real wave of the political future is particularly 
significant, since this graduate of the Harvard Law School is far from 
being a Conservative on many issues. As one who walks carefully along 
the center stripe, Phillips cannot be accused of letting his personal 
prejudices color his conclusions - a charge which reviewers applied to 
similar conclusions of the brilliant M. Stanton Evans at the time he 
published The Future of Conservatism in 1968. Actually the Phillips 
book, written after the election and based on a careful scrutiny of the 
returns, proves that Mr. Evans was less a partisan than an accurate 
analyst and shrewd forecaster of the temper of the American trend. 

Republican Battle Line, in September 1969, called the Phillips 
book "no less than a blueprint for Republican Party control of the 
White House for the remainder of the century. And it is based on a mass 
of maps, charts, election trend 

statistics and historical facts that in combination reflect the 
author's deep sense of scholarship and keen analytic mind." 

The "Phillips Strategy" in a nutshell is to build a Republican 
presidential majority based upon combining the Heartland (Midwest), the 
Sun Belt (from Charleston, S.C., across the Southwest to Southern 
California), and the West. The twenty-five states that comprise the 
Heartland, for example, cast 223 of the 270 electoral votes needed to 
elect a President of the United States. Whereas Nixon carried only 17 
of these in 1960, in 1968 he carried 21. The "Phillips Strategy" 
abandons the Northeast, saying in effect, "There's no way, baby." 

Phillips has sent Liberals into absolute conniptions, and they 
have damned his plan as "the Southern Strategy." Actually, it is not a 
"Southern Strategy," but a national strategy that includes the South. 
Unfortunately, Liberals have not psychologically re-admitted the South 
into the Union. They love the sidewalks of New York, not the suburbs of 
Atlanta. What they hate most about it, of course, is that the "Phillips 
Strategy" is a Conservative strategy to build a coalition of 
Republicans, Catholics, and Southern Democrats. Following the 1970 mid- 
term elections, Liberals, including Democratic chieftain Lawrence 
O'Brien, fell all over themselves announcing that the "Southern 
strategy" had flopped, since many GOP candidates had gone down the 
drain in Dixie. But the misnamed "Southern Strategy" is a Presidential 
strategy, not a gubernatorial or congressional strategy. Certainly the 
GOP would like to elect governors, senators, and congressmen in the 
South, and someday they may, but the facts of the matter are that many 
Southerners vote for Conservative Democrats in these races. However, 
this does not mean they will swallow a Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, 
or Teddy Kennedy in a presidential race. They will either vote 
Republican, if the candidate is a Conservative, or they will vote for a 
third party candidate 

like Governor George Wallace in an attempt, at the very least, to throw 
the election into the House of Representatives, where they could 
bargain . 

"Ah," say the Liberals, "but you don't build a party by reading 
people out of it. You build a party by bringing people into it. We must 
attract the young, the poor, and the black." Of course, no party should 
exclude people because of race, age, or economic status, but the 
Republican Party should exclude socialists - be they millionaires or 
welfare recipients. It is truly tragic that many of the young, the 
poor, and the black have been convinced that their economic salvation 
lies in socialism - the primary cause of the problems they have. The 
Republican Party must not cater to their mistaken ideas. The clich6 
that socialism is the cancer of liberty and has never worked is true. 
Following the path of the welfare state with its increasing numbers of 
people on the dole, high taxes, and perpetual inflation is not only 
immoral and the road to national disaster; but it is not even 
politically expedient. Phillips, relying on stark statistics, shows 
that no amount of Republican concern for Negro welfare can gain their 
mass support. He points to returns which show that neither Michigan ex- 
Governor George Romney nor Illinois Senator Charles Percy got more than 
19 or 20 per cent of the black vote, despite their all-out effort to 
win it. Phillips adds: "Indeed, the Negro-Democratic mutual 
identification was a major source of Democratic loss ... in many 
parts of the country ..." and conversely, the lack of GOP-Negro 
identification helped the Republicans nationwide. 

With an impressive array of vote statistics culled from 
Northeastern and urban precincts, Phillips demolished the Liberal 
Republican argument that the GOP must cater to big city Liberals to 
gain votes. He calls this "one of the greatest political myths of this 

decade - a product of liberal self-interest . . . the actual 
demographic and political facts convey a very different message." The 
"Big City strategy" 

aimed at the Northeast, as advocated by GOP Liberals, assures only a 
Republican debacle. The big cities are losing their power. The real 
growth of America is in the suburbs and particularly in the suburbs of 
the fast-growing areas of the South-Southwest and West - targeted by 
Phillips as the base of his emerging Republican majority. The electoral 
votes of the Sun Belt almost tripled in the half century between 1920 
and 1970, outstripping the declining urban Northeast in the process. 
Egually important, the Republican share of the suburban vote is on the 
increase.' Richard C. Wade of the University of Chicago wrote: "The 
great growth area of the country is the suburbs - and they are going to 
be for a long time . . . the suburbs are likely to stay strongly 
Republican."- However, the decisive turning point has come just 
recently. A report by the Republican National Committee on the 1966 
elections stated: "The balance of political power in the nation's major 
metropolitan areas has swung sharply in the direction of the suburbs in 
the past four years." In his book, Conservatism and the GOP, Frank W. 
Mezek Jr. went on to say: 

In 1962 the metropolitan area vote was about evenly divided 
between the cities and their suburbs, but in four years the suburban 
vote grew by more than 12 percent while the urban vote declined 11.5 
percent . 

Thus, in the 1966 elections, the suburban share of the total 
metropolitan vote rose to 56 percent! .... [Emphasis in the 

U.S. News & World Report told us in its June 2, 1969 issue: 
"Four-fifths of the national growth will be found to have taken place 
in the suburbs, where nearly 20 million people have been added in a 
decade . " 

Phillips asserted that a large segment of the Democratic 
electorate is in the process of breaking away. The old urban-labor 
coalition which has served the Democratic party 

so faithfully and well in the past is breaking down. "The Democratic 
coalition is now a basket case. Its body is emaciated, and its arms or 
legs are broken, or paralyzed, or sliced right off, " wrote Stewart 
Alsop.3 Theodore Sorenson, the late President Kennedy's chief adviser, 
said: "The old urban coalition has split to smithereens. The unions can 
no longer deliver their members, their preachers can no longer deliver 
the Negroes and the ward captains can no longer deliver the 
precincts . "4 

The children of the masses of first- and second-generation 
Americans, who were often ignorant or illiterate and crowded into large 
cities, where they were dependent on the Democratic precinct captain 
for vital services or jobs, have now moved to the suburbs. Frank Mezek 
notes : 

. . . the laboring man is becoming affluent, suburbanized, 
conservative and Republican - usually in that order. The American 
worker is no longer Roosevelt's "forgotten man" of the Depression, and 
he would probably be insulted if this were insinuated today ... .5 

Addressing the Western States Democratic Conference in Los 
Angeles on August 26, 1967, Postmaster General Lawrence F. O'Brien, 

referring to "American workers who live in the suburbs, pay taxes, 
support church and community activities and hope to send their children 
to college, " went on to say, "We are making a serious error if we look 
at union memberships as if they were living back in the 1930 's. Today 
the party that forgets that about 50 percent of union families are in 
the $7,500 to $15,000 range does so at its peril. "6 

Pat Brown, the former Democratic Governor of California, said 
after his 1966 loss to Ronald Reagan: "Workers used to ask about 
workmen's compensation and disability insurance. Not this time. The 
workers have become aristocrats, they became Republicans."' 

As laboring families move to the suburbs, and one-half of all 
laboring families and 75 percent of union members under age 40 now live 
in suburbia, they do not automatically desert the Democratic Party for 
the Republican. It is more a process of attrition. As they pay property 
taxes, become more closely oriented to their local government, and are 
influenced by the proximity of Conservative and Republican thought, 
they tend to become Conservative and Republican themselves. The rise of 
the suburbs reflects a growing middle-class and growing affluence in 
the United States. Studies by the AFL-CIO have shown that as people 
move to the suburbs they gradually become more Conservative, looking to 
the federal government not as a benefactor, but as a menace. They 
become aware not of what government can "give" them, but of what it can 
take away . $ 

While Phillips, Evans, and Mezek all agree that labor is becoming 
increasingly sympathetic to courting by Conservatives, the 1970 
Congressional elections showed that labor tends to return to the womb 
when the economy sours and the specter of unemployment rises. Nixon's 
refusal to control inflation -by cutting government spending and taxes 
doubtless cost the Republicans dear in the off-year elections, despite 
the fact that he was basically following Phillips' campaign 
recommendations and making a Conservative appeal. 

Another factor in favor of forging the "New Consensus" is that 
the number of blue-collar workers is decreasing as a percentage of the 
total population. Increased educational opportunities and the force of 
an increasingly scientific and technological society are changing the 
makeup of the work force. There are now six and a half million more 
white-collar than blue-collar workers in our country. 9 

A major segment of the "New Consensus" is the South, where 
century-long attachments to the Democratic party are breaking down. 
Phillips peers at his election statistics and determines that the whole 
future of the Republican party lies 

in moving far enough to the Right to persuade Southern Wallace voters, 
who are mostly Democrats, to get off their donkey and mount the 
elephant. He writes: 

The common denominator of Wallace's support, Catholic or 
Protestant, is alienation from the Democratic party and a strong trend 
- shown in other years and other contests - towards the GOP. Although 
most of Wallace's votes came from Democrats, he principally won those 
in motion beween a Democratic past and a Republican future .... 
Three quarters or more of the Wallace electorate represented lost Nixon 
votes, to 

In an interview with Human Events on August 16, 1969, Phillips 
further elaborated on the Wallace vote: 

. . . of the states Wallace carried, four of them had been among 
the six to vote for Goldwater in 1964. Obviously much of the Wallace 
electorate there, and beyond those states as well, was a Goldwater 
electorate. And to that extent it came from voters who had been in a 
Republican voting pattern. 

But you can go beyond this and you can look at areas that were 
showing a trend to the Republicans in 1960 that was guite sharp and 
then rolling up a heavy Wallace vote in 1968. The indication is that an 
awful lot of these voters, although Democrats by party identification, 
were exactly the segment of the Democratic electorate that is in the 
process of breaking away . 

. . . Third parties have almost always served as way stations 
between the parties, and these Wallace voters seem definitely to be in 
a transitional phase. 

Loyalties to the Democratic Party that were built in the South 
after the Civil War are being displaced as the Democratic Party becomes 
more and more the creature of the Eastern Liberal Establishment. 
Phillips observed: 

What you have in the works politically is a deterioriation of 
Democratic tradition among people, often very conservative people, 
whose loyalty to the Democratic party is based on old Democratic party 
cultural, regional and ethnic loyalties. And as 

those deteriorate and fall apart, their cohesion starts transferring 
itself to the GOP. Mainly because there are many aspects of the 
Republican party, whether in foreign policy or social policy or 
economic policy, that are more appealing to these people once their old 
traditional loyalties become to them obsolescent and no longer 
purposeful . . . , 11 

However, it is doubtful if many of these potential pachyderms 
have been converted by the actions of the Nixon Administration, despite 
the occasional "meaningless bauble" thrown their way. Liberal Stewart 
Alsop sees Mr. Nixon moving Left (for his "New Consensus") because that 
is where he believes most of the voters lie: 

This two-way nibbling explains why the President who unleashed 
Agnew and nominated Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. and G. Harrold Carswell 
is the same President who first proposed a floor under incomes and a 
multibillion-dollar attack on pollution. Judging by the polls and other 
evidence, the nibbling is going so well that the President is much 
closer to creating his majority than would have seemed likely a year 
ago . 

If the majority is to be solid and lasting, most of the votes 
will have to come from the Democratic center rather than the Wallace 
right, because that is where most of the votes are. This is why the 
Nixon technigue of pre-emption of the liberal Democratic issues is his 
chief political instrument. He has used it so far with consummate skill 

. . . His object is to create a solid majority for the Republican 
Party and Richard Nixon, which will be the mirror image of the 
Democratic majority created by Franklin Roosevelt. 

Roosevelt's majority stretched from the outer edges of the pro- 
Communist left to the outer edges of the hard-core Republican right. 
Mr. Nixon's majority is designed to stretch from the edges of the 

Wallace right to the edges of the hard-core liberal Democratic left. 
And he is nibbling away at both edges just as hard as he can. 12 

Mr. Nixon obviously would like to be all things to all people. 

Liberals in general, and Liberal Republicans in particular, have 
tried to convince Republican politicians that the country is 
overwhelmingly Liberal and that the word "Conservative" has a poisonous 
image. For them it does. But not to the American public. The truth is 
that "Conservative" has far more acceptance - by as much as a two-to- 
one margin - than does the term "Republican." Current surveys reveal 
that barely one-guarter of the American people now consider themselves 
Republicans, but a far higher percentage, up to one-half of the 
electorate, think of themselves as Conservatives. In a 1963 Gallup 
Poll, voters were asked, "Suppose there were two major parties in the 
United States, one for liberals and one for conservatives, which one 
would you be most likely to prefer?" Fifty-one percent answered 
Liberal, forty-nine percent answered Conservative.' 3 In other words, 
the Conservatives would only have to proselytize one percent of the 
Liberals to achieve parity. 

In a September 1966 interview Gallup admitted that Conservative 
strength in America seemed to be on the increase, and added: "The 
country is split almost evenly between 'conservatives' and "liberals.' 
Strangely enough, the word 'conservative' doesn't carry the onus that 
the word 'Republican' does." 

A Harris survey in 1964 found Conservatism on a key number of 
issues to be not merely strong but overwhelming. Harris concluded that 
voters agreed with Goldwater on prayer in the schools (88 per cent), 
government security regulations (94 per cent), the demoralizing effect 
of government welfare programs (60 per cent), and the general increase 
of government power (60 percent) . The fact that these same voters were 
preparing to cast their ballots against the candidate who represented 
their own views on these guestions, and in favor of the candidate who 
opposed them, illustrates the difficulty of putting a strictly 
ideological interpretation on any given set of election results. If the 

election had been run on issues instead of TV ads showing Social 
Security cards being torn up and little girls vaporized in mushroom 
clouds, Goldwater would have won. But former Census Bureau chief 
Richard Scammon observed that many voters thought Johnson was the 
Conservative candidate and Goldwater the "radical" one. Harris found 
that almost half the voters polled by his organization chose the 
designation "radical" rather than "conservative" to describe 
Goldwater' s position. '4 

If there are more Conservatives than is generally believed, then 
why have they lost so many presidential elections to Liberals? The 
chief answer, according to Evans, is that American elections are not 
ideological plebiscites but highly complicated affairs in which popular 
sentiment is divided by many other factors. Also, it is difficult to 
determine cause and effect, because politicians most often do not 
conduct their campaigns in terms relevant to ideology. Egually 
important is the fact that Conservatives over the years have been 
outclassed by the Liberals in presenting their case to the public. But 
Richard Nixon proved in 1968 that a candidate could run as a 
Conservative and win. 

Mr. Nixon, a firm realist when it comes to politics, obviously 
realizes that despite the howls of Republican Liberals, Messrs. 
Phillips, Evans, and Mezek know what they are talking about. Republican 

campaign strategy in 1968 and 1970 reflected an awareness that those 
who have come to be known as "the silent majority" are a large and 
politically forceful group. This does not mean that they are 
wellinformed Conservatives who have studied political philosophy, 
economics, or history from other than the Liberal point of view. These 
people, for the most part, attended the same institutions of higher 
leaning and rely for their information on the same Establishment- 
controlled slick magazines and television commentators as the Liberals. 
But they are intuitive Conservatives who look around and see the 
real world as it is. Innately they are appalled at crime, rioting, 
inflation, high taxes, and an America-last foreign policy. What Richard 
Nixon realizes is that most of these people have short memories and 
basically want to forget about politics and go back to minding their 
own business after the election. Most of them are lulled to sleep by 
the continuing Conservative rhetoric and don't notice that the Liberals 
are getting the lion's share of the action. 

Doubtless Mr. Nixon would like to carry on this charade through 
the '72 election. After that it will be "Katy bar the door." Until 
then, the realities of the Phillips strategy must be observed - though 
officially denied. Since writing his book, The Emerging Republican 
Majority, Mr. Phillips has become officially an un-person. Now that he 
is no longer with the Nixon Administration, when his name is mentioned, 
top party leaders say, "Kevin who?" Columnists Evans and Novak detailed 
in the Los Angeles Times of September 30, 1969, how the White House has 
decided to handle this hot potato: 

President Nixon's highly critical answer at Friday's press 
conference when asked about Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican 
Majority" was no snap response but had been carefully prepared in 
advance as part of a concerted White House effort to disavow the book 
and muzzle the author. 

A few days before the President's public rejection of the lily- 
white strategy implicit in the book, the muzzle was applied. It was 
made clear from on high in the Administration that Phillips, a 29-year- 
old special assistant to Atty. Gen. John N. Mitchell, ought to curtail 
his public appearances. As a result, he guietly bowed out of a 
scheduled debate on NBC's Today show last Wednesday morning .... 

Early in September, a senior White House aide (not Dent) prepared 
a highly critical memorandum on the book for Mr. Nixon. It recommended 
that, when asked, the President should say he had not read the book but 
still indicate clearly that he does not agree with it (advice he 
followed at Friday's press conference) . 15 

Evans and Novak reported that Phillips had been thoroughly 
muzzled by the Administration until he left his job as Mitchell's aide. 
But you can be certain that Mr. Nixon and Attorney General John 
Mitchell, who will reportedly manage Mr. Nixon's campaign once again in 
1972, have virtually memorized every chart, table, and graph in The 
Emerging Republican Majority. Battle Line pointed out in December 1969: 

. . . if conservatives are pleased with the words of Agnew and 
Mitchell, they should not lose sight of the many liberal actions 
the Nixon Administration has been taking. It is fairly obvious 
that the President and his political advisors have understood and 
accepted the thesis advanced in Kevin Phillips' book The 
Emerging Republican Majority. Being pragmatic, they naturally 
tend to do whatever they feel necessary to win the support of this 
new national conservative majority .... 

You can also be certain that the Democrats will cooperate by 
nominating a "super-Liberal" who will frighten many Americans into 
reluctantly supporting Mr. Nixon and his seemingly more moderate 
socialism. It will be the old "lesser of two evils" flim-flam once 
again. And why not? It works! And it will continue to work until 
Americans realize that the choice they are given - between taking the 
freeway to socialism and going by way of the back alleys - is a false 
alternative. Both lead to the same destination; one route merely gets 
there slightly later than the other. 

Numerous rationalizations are offered for the conflict between 
what Mr. Nixon does and what he says. One major excuse is that he does 
not control Congress. This is true from a numerical standpoint, but it 
would be guite possible to forge an ideological majority with a 
Republican-Southern Democrat coalition. 

If he wanted to, the President could take giant steps toward 
reducing socialistic controls over the citizens of this 

country without the assistance of a single senator or congressman. Many 
of the most dictatorial laws that have partially enslaved Americans 
were not passed by Congress at all. These are "Executive Orders," which 
are entered into the Federal Register by the Executive Department and 
at the end of thirty days have the force of law. Nowhere in the 
Constitution will you find a grant of power to make "Executive Orders." 
Historically, presidents issued these "Executive Orders" to cover 
things like holidays and working schedules for government employees. 
But Franklin Delano Roosevelt perverted this harmless mechanism into a 
weapon for establishing one-man tyrannical rule by bypassing Congress. 
For example, the reason you cannot own gold is not that Congress passed 
a law against it, but that FDR issued an "Executive Order." Mr. Nixon 
has said much (and done nothing) about returning the power of 
government to the people. By "the people," he does not mean 
individuals, but state and local governments. Mr. Nixon could take a 
gigantic step towards increasing individual liberty simply by 
systematically repealing literally thousands of un-Constitutional 
"Executive Orders" that are on the books. Instead, Mr. Nixon has 
increased their number and strengthened some of the most dangerous 
ones . 

The concept that the federal government is a Frankenstein monster 
run amuck, which cannot be controlled, is another oft-used excuse for 
the contradiction between Nixon's promises and his performance, as in 
this example by the Wall Street Journal's Alan Otten: 

. . . there's the possibility, sure to be rejected by 
conservative philosophers, that the Presidency simply forces a man to 
be more liberal - that once in office, facing the magnitude and 
intensity of unsolved problems and the tremendous backlog of unmet 
needs, a man concerned about his place in history almost inevitably 
becomes an activist, ready or even eager to order new and bigger 
Federal programs. Greater action by the private sector 
and state and local governments may be fine campaign themes, and Mr. 
Nixon will surely push for such action in the months ahead. But the 
levers and money the President actually controls are Federal power and 
Federal funds, and more and more he uses these to meet the problems he 
feels must be met. 16 

Certainly it takes courage to reduce government, because every 
bureau, every subsidy, every program represents strong vested 

interests. But public sentiment is, in general, strongly in favor of 
cutting back the expensive giveaways - many of which could be abolished 
by cancelling the "Executive Orders" that created them. Instead, Mr. 
Nixon is moving in just the opposite direction, adding onto New Deal, 
Fair Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society programs as well as creating 
"New Nixon" giveaways of his own. 

Another rationalization offered for Mr. Nixon's seemingly 
inconsistent Liberal actions is that he is prevented by public opinion 
from doing otherwise. But this is just the reverse of the truth. As the 
February 1970 Battle Line observed: 

Nor can it be plausibly argued that Nixon is simply being as 
conservative as public opinion will allow. Quite the opposite. He is 
obviously suggesting to the public that he is more conservative than is 
actually the case - implying that public opinion would not only 
countenance more rightward action but is earnestly in want of it. If 
the administration's objective is to move things as much toward 
traditionalism as possible, it should be willing to be at least as 
conservative as its advertising says it is. 

The obvious question is: Why is Nixon leading into socialism? He 
campaigned as a Conservative, virtually lifting George Wallace's 
campaign theme lock, stock, and barrel. There was hardly a dime's worth 
of difference between a Nixon campaign speech and a Wallace campaign 
speech, except for Wallace's more colorful colloquialisms. The long- 
standing argument over whether a man can win the Presidency by 
campaigning as a Conservative has finally been settled. Now 
millions are .wondering why Nixon's actions as President should be so 
different from his campaign promises. What motive could he have? 

Every amateur psychiatrist and "pop" psychologist from Burbank to 
Boston has been trying for two and a half decades to discover the 
"real" Nixon. It is a pastime almost as popular as playing Monopoly, or 
mini-skirt watching. Theories abound like ants at a midsummer's picnic. 
We shall not spend time on any of these theories for we believe most of 
them are inconsequential, except that friend and foe unanimously agree 
that Mr. Nixon is fired by an allconsuming ambition. We think Mr. Nixon 
is summed up in an unguarded remark he made to an acquaintance of ours 
when he was first running for Congress in 1946, before he had acquired 
the cool reticence of today: "Look, you drove up to this meeting in a 
beautiful new Cadillac. I came here in a battered secondhand Chevrolet. 
But all of that is going to change. I'm going to get mine, no matter 
what it takes." This inordinate ambition has been both Mr. Nixon's 
greatest asset and, from the country's point of view, his Achilles' 
heel. This fervid desire to scratch his way to the top of the political 
heap has driven him to spend countless hours preparing himself for the 
presidency. It drove him to tour the country tirelessly, not only in 
his own behalf but for other Republican candidates. It allowed him to 
rise from the ashes like a phoenix after his defeat in the 1962 
California gubernatorial election, in which virtually every observer in 
the nation had read Nixon's political epitaph. Richard Nixon is far 
from being the first man to have borne the scars of childhood poverty 
and had them turn into a mania of ambition for wealth or power. Mr. 
Nixon became a politician quite by accident (as we shall see later) , 
much as a man might fall into a career in advertising or as a 
stockbroker. Had he not become a politician he might have become a real 
live Cash McCall, or another Joe Kennedy. But such was not his fate. 

One can readily understand how a man of inordinate ambition may 
become an opportunist or, as Mr. Nixon is most often called, a 
pragmatist, i.e., one who does what appears to be practical without 
regard to any set of principles. 

While Nixon's most vociferous backers have for the most part been 
Conservative, he does not himself profess to be a Conservative. When 
asked where he stood on the ideological spectrum, Mr. Nixon replied, 
"I'm perhaps at dead center." 17 Being "at dead center," however, is a 
convenient, a pragmatic position. One can move in either direction from 
there, very guickly and without attracting great attention. But, as we 
have said before, the "middle of the road" is a totally unstable 
position. It is theoretically a position between competitive free 
enterprise on the right and revolutionary Communism on the left. The 
"center" is not the place of moderation its adherents claim it to be. 
As the world's greatest economist, Ludwig von Mises, has shown, "The 
middle of the road leads to socialism." In every election campaign the 
"middle of the roaders" have to promise more and more "free" government 
goodies to those beguiled individuals who believe that there is such a 
thing as something for nothing. And in each election we enfranchise 
more and more people who do not work for a living and therefore don't 
pay the taxes that finance the "free" government handouts. This is why 
the "middle of the road" has been steadily shifting Leftward since the 
election of FDR. Many centrist goals today (such as a guaranteed annual 
income) would have been considered ultra-Leftwing less than a decade 
ago. Many, if not most, Americans consider themselves "middle of the 
roaders" because they feel it is a sensible position between extremes. 
A politician can run as a "centrist" and attract support from most 
people on the political spectrum, foregoing the allegiance only of 
those who are termed "extremists." This false conception of what the 
political spectrum is has been the secret weapon of the Fabian 
Socialists, who would bring the theories of Marx to fruition one 
painful step at a time. By the middle '50s the late old-time socialist 
Norman Thomas could look around and proclaim that practically all of 
the planks of the Socialist Party platform of 1932 had been adopted by 
the Democrats and Republicans. In April 1957, Thomas, six-time 
candidate for President of the U.S. on the Socialist ticket, stated 
that "the United States is making greater strides towards socialism 
under Eisenhower than under Roosevelt ."' 8 And Norman Thomas, who liked 
Ike, would be absolutely delirious over Richard Nixon. 

The concept that Mr. Nixon is a "centrist," a "middle of the 
roader, " a "pragmatist" - empty terms that sound meaningful - is widely 
promoted by the press. Alan Otten, in the Wall Street Journal, 
expressed what is generally accepted as the lack of any guiding 
philosophy within the administration when he wrote: "... the Nixon 
Administration appears to have no convictions at all - to be merely 
holding its finger to the political winds and swaying back and forth, " 
and he further observes that the President "is above all a pragmatist, 
addressing himself matter-of-f actly and non-philosophically to the 
domestic and foreign problems facing the country and the political 
problems facing himself and his party; that he will seek aggressively 
to command as much of the middle of the road as possible; and that this 
means he will probably zigzag back and forth . . . "'9 Columnist Robert 
Semple of the New York Times would have us believe the same thing: 

Yet in the end one suspects that the underlying cause of much of 
the confusion is the absence of any firm ideological thrust in Mr. 
Nixon's mind or in the minds of his principal associates. "A political 

man," he is fond of calling himself, and that is what he is: a creature 
of that extraordinarily shapeless heritage known as "moderate 
Republicanism, " a centrist whose principal political ambition is to 
occupy neither the right nor the left, but to enlarge the middle. 

Hence he zigs and he zags, and if he is zigging rightward today - 
and no one should be surprised by this, in view of his campaign 
promises - then he may zag in the other direction tomorrow. 
Intellectually supple and politically sensitive, he is trying to build 
a complicated platform from which he can preside - and win again. 2° 

Max Frankel put forth the same Establishment line on the 
President: "... the President abhors controversy and keeps trying to 
embrace all points of view . . . "21 

The Wall Street Journal's Edward Behr predicted on July 17, 1969, 
that apparent ideological confusion will continue to reign throughout 
Nixon's first administration: 

It may well be . . . that no one action will mean much, that the 
oft-confusing crosscurrents marking the President's first six months 
will persist indefinitely and that even by January 1973 the Nixon 
regime will show no clear-cut pattern or philosophy. 

You can bet a clear-cut pattern will emerge after January 1, 

On January 24, 1970, Human Events interpreted Mr. Nixon's actions 
in much the same way: 

We don't accuse the Nixon Administration of being truly liberal, 
or even blindly middle-of-the-road. More often than not, it appears 
confused and at cross purposes with itself. Too freguently it seems as 
if the President has no real philosophy, that his entire goal is to 
tranquilize the electorate rather than to lead it in a certain 
direction. When the conservatives get uppity, Spiro Agnew comes to the 
fore with all his hard-line rhetoric. But as the liberals become 
incensed, Agnew fades offstage and the spotlight suddenly focuses on 
Robert Finch, who has been patiently waiting in the wings with his 
latest liberal spectacular. 

While superficially it appears that Mr. Nixon wouldn't take a 
stand on what time it is without consulting a hatful of watches and is 
widely regarded as America's foremost 

political weathervane, this merely serves to mask what is really 
happening. The political winds are blowing to the Right, and Mr. Nixon 
acknowledges this while at the same time moving Leftward. Congressman 
Robert Nix (R.-Pa.) commented: "... the Nation [is] being asked to 
do the 'Nixon foxtrot' - one step forward, two steps backward, then 
three steps sideways and take a 15-minute break." We think two steps 
Left and one step Right is a more accurate if less colorful 
description. In Marxist terminology this is known as dialectics. 

Establishmentarian Max Lerner of the New York Times would have us 
believe Nixon may not know what he is doing: 

If some leaders govern by love and some by fear, Mr. Nixon 
generates neither but governs by puzzlement and indirection. He runs 
foreign policy and suffers domestic policy, but in both his chief 
quality is a shrewdness which keeps his opponents constantly off 
balance by timing, compromise and diversion and also the quality of 

detachment which enables him to use a Henry Kissinger and Daniel 
Moynihan as well as a Spiro Agnew and a Mitchell for purposes that none 
of the four may understand - if indeed the President himself 
understands them. 22 

But we think there is method in this madness. As Alan Otten 
noted: " . . . to a large extent his [Nixon's] policy has been one of 
studied ambiguity . "23 We think the "studied ambiguity" is a smokescreen 
behind which Nixon can continue the same policies of taking the country 
Leftward that were practiced by Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, 
and Johnson. The faces change, but the policies never do. In its 
February 1970 issue Battle Line observed: 

What is the ideological significance of all this? It is suggested 
that Nixon's policy is a kind of fabianism in reverse - an inching back 
toward traditional GOP principles, in which Nixon moves as far to the 
right as conditions will permit .... this is obviously not the case. 
What has transpired is not a movement toward conservatism, but 
continued momentum along the path of 

liberalism, albeit at a slower pace than might have been expected if 
Hubert Humphrey rather than Nixon were in the White House. 

The Nixon Administration is not Fabianism in reverse, it is 
Fabianism in second gear forward. Nixon sees himself as a modern 
Disraeli, a man with a Conservative image who 

implements socialist programs. Alan Otten wrote concerning Mr. Nixon, 
in the Wall Street Journal of August 20, 1969: 

. . . He had been reading a life of Disraeli, the conservative 
[sic] Prime Minister who pushed through some of Britain's earliest laws 
to improve slum conditions, protect factory workers and extend the 
franchise. Both appraising Disraeli and paraphrasing one of his 
quotations, Mr. Nixon said he realized it was "Tory men with liberal 
principles who enlarged democracy." 

. . . But the Nixon comment does call attention to an oft- 
forgotten fact of political life: Conservatives pursuing a liberal 
course can on occasion succeed better than liberals could have, while 
liberals on occasion can advance a conservative cause better than 
conservatives could. 

The cold, hard facts are that Mr. Nixon is neither a Liberal, nor 
a Conservative, nor a "pragmatist, " nor a "centrist," although at times 
he can pretend to be any of these. He is simply a man with all- 
consuming ambition. And as a professional politician, naturally a man 
with his desire to get to the top of the heap would seek the ultimate 
in political power - the Presidency. But Mr. Nixon could not have 
become President unless he had been willing to work with or join the 
oligarchy that has the power to make or break those with presidential 
aspirations . 

After losing to Pat Brown in the California gubernatorial race in 
1962, Nixon had universally been consigned to the political trash heap. 
He left his practice as an attorney in California and went to New York, 
where he moved in as a neighbor of Nelson Rockefeller, the man who is 
supposedly his archenemy, in a $100, 000-a-year apartment in a building 
owned by Rockefeller. Then Mr. Nixon went to work for the law firm of 
Mr. Rockefeller's personal attorney, and in the next six years spent 
most of his time touring the country and the world, first rebuilding 

his political reputation and then campaigning to get the 1968 
Republican nomination. At the same time, according to his own financial 
statements, his net worth multiplied many times and he became quite 
wealthy. Nelson Rockefeller, the man who helped make Nixon acceptable 
to Conservatives by appearing to oppose him, and his colleagues of the 
Eastern Liberal Establishment, rescued him from political oblivion and 
made him President of the United States. Does it not make sense that 
Mr. Nixon, the man of passionate ambition whose career had sunk to the 
bottom, had to make some deals in order to reach his goal? And did he 
not acquire massive political debts in return for being made President 
by the Eastern Liberal Establishment? 

The President is obviously an un-free agent. Mr. Nixon gets the 
glory, gets to live in the White House, flies across the nation and the 
world in a giant jet, and makes numerous decisions and appointments, 
but the real power lies with a clique based in New York. This clique is 
interested in building an all-powerful government that it will control. 
This is the real reason Mr. Nixon moves Left while talking like a 
Conservative. He has no choice. Despite highly convincing statements 
about cutting spending and decentralizing government, almost everything 
he does increases government spending and concentrates more and more 
power in the federal government. Certainly it is not exclusively a one- 
way street. That would be too obvious. The "Nixon Fox Trot" two steps 
Left, one step Right - serves to disguise the real intent and direction 
of the Nixon Administration. As Battle Line pointed out in February 

For those who have watched the President's career in politics 

the past year should really be no surprise. Nixon has always 
prided himself on being a pragmatic "centrist." What was surprising in 
1968 was that so many staunch Republican conservatives should have 
granted Mr. Nixon the nomination, which they surely had the power to 
deny, without gaining some assurance that his presidential policies 
would at least reflect elemental conservative tendencies. Indeed the 
mass of conservative minded voters who elected Richard Nixon can be 
forgiven their lack of political sophistication. They heard what 
candidate Nixon said and to them it sounded conservative, matched their 
state of mind, and so they elected him. 

Many key Conservatives were given private assurances during the 
campaign that the Nixon Administration would be very Conservative. But 
this was simply bait. Mr. Nixon was already firmly committed to 
carrying out the will of the clique to whose members we shall 
hereinafter refer to as the Insiders, who had resurrected him from 
political oblivion. 

If this is true, and it is, the obvious questions are: What is 
this mysterious clique, and why are its members interested in building 
a socialist government? 

The Establishing Of Establishments 

The word "Establishment" is badly overused and misused today, 
thanks to the young people who employ it to categorize parents, 
teachers, policemen, all government employees, all businessmen, and 
virtually anyone who has drifted across the magical age line of thirty. 
This is unfortunate, for there is in the country what truly amounts to 
an Establishment. As we use the word in this book, it means people and 
organizations connected with the immensely powerful and highly secret 
Council on Foreign Relations - the CFR. 

One of the extremely infrequent articles concerning this Council 
that have appeared in the national press was published in the Christian 
Science Monitor of September 1, 1961. It began this way: 

On the west side of fashionable Park Avenue at 68th Street [in 
New York City] sit two handsome buildings across , the way from each 
other. One is the Soviet Embassy to the United Nations .... Directly 
opposite on the southwest corner is the Council on Foreign Relations - 
probably one of the most influential semi-public organizations in the 
field of foreign policy. 

Although the formal membership of the CFR is composed of fourteen 
hundred of the most elite names in the worlds of government, labor, 
business, finance, communications, the foundations, and education - and 
despite the fact that it has staffed almost every key position of every 

sine FDR's - it is doubtful that one American in a hundred so much as 
recognizes the Council's name, or that one in a thousand knows anything 
at all about its structure or purpose. Indicative of the CFR's power to 
maintain its anonymity is the fact this writer discovered after poring 
over decades of volumes of the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature: 
that, despite its having been operative at the highest levels for fifty 
years, and having from the beginning counted among its members the 
foremost lions of the communications media, the CFR has been the 
subject of only one article in a major national journal - and that one 
in Harper's, hardly a mass-circulation periodical. Similarly, only a 
handful of articles on the Council have appeared in the nation's great 
newspapers. Such anonymity - at that level can hardly be a matter of 
mere chance. 

Strangely, if you write to the CFR asking for information, you 
will receive an expensively printed Annual Report which lists officers, 
members, publications, and expenses for the previous year. But this is 
just about all you can learn about the CFR. We don't know who really 
sets its policy, and its meetings are secret. In fact, the bylaws call 
for the expulsion of any member who discusses in public what goes on at 
CFR meetings . . 

The Christian Science Monitor did note in the article of 
September 1, 1961, that: 

Its roster . . . contains names distinguished in the field of 
diplomacy, government, business, finance, science, labor, journalism, 
law and education. What united so wide-ranging and disparate a 
membership is a passionate concern for the direction of American 
foreign policy. 

The CFR's passionate concern for the direction of American 
foreign policy has amounted to an attempt - highly successful - to make 
certain that American foreign policy continues marching Leftward toward 
World Government. 

The. CFR was criticized for precisely this by the Reece Committee, a 
Special Committee of the House of Representatives established in 1953 
to investigate abuses by tax-free foundations. In the case of the 
Council on Foreign Relations, the Committee found that "its productions 
are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the 
globalism concept." 

Despite nearly incredible pressure to remain silent, the Reece 
Committee disclosed that the CFR had in fact come to be almost an 
employment agency for key areas of the U.S. Government - "no doubt 
carrying its internationalist bias with it." The investigation also 
showed that the CFR's influence was so great that it had almost 
completely usurped the prescribed activities of the U.S. State 
Department. The Christian Science Monitor article confirmed this 
conclusion as follows: 

Because of the Council's single-minded dedication to studying and 
deliberating American foreign policy, there is a constant flow of its 
members from private to public service. Almost half of the Council 
members have been invited to assume official government positions or to 
act as consultants at one time or another. [Emphasis added.] 

The policies promoted by the CFR in the fields of defense and 
international relations become the official policies of the United 
States Government with a regularity that defies the laws of chance. As 
Liberal columnist Joseph Kraft, himself a member of the CFR, noted of 
the Council in Harper's of July 1958: "It has been the seat of . . . 
basic government decisions, has set the context for many more, and has 
repeatedly served as a recruiting ground .for ranking officials." 
Kraft, incidentally, aptly titled his article on the CFR, "School for 
Statesmen" - an admission that the members of the Council are drilled 
with a "line" of strategy to be carried out in Washington. 

As the Christian Science Monitor admits, almost half of the 
members of the CFR have served in the government under one 
administration or another. There are CFR members who serve in 
Democratic administrations and CFR members who serve in Republican 
regimes. There is a great game of musical chairs when a new 
administration takes office, although no matter who is in power, many 
members seem to stay on in key positions, particularly in the State 
Department. Since the public knows nothing of the CFR, it accepts the 
public relations image that many of these men are political enemies, 
not realizing that they are in fact all parts of the same power-seeking 
organization . 

So completely has the CFR dominated the State Department over the 
past thirty-eight years that every Secretary of State except Cordell 
Hull, James Byrnes, and William Rogers has been a CFR member. And 
though Rogers himself is not CFR, Professor Henry Kissinger, the 
President's chief foreign policy advisor, came to the job from the 
staff of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

The CFR has one primary goal: the abolition of the United States. 
This is not an exaggeration, although it is hardly the way they express 
it. Our Founding Fathers set up a sovereign United States. The CFR 
wants to abolish the sovereign United States and set up a world 
government. That is why the CFR was founded in 1919. The CFR makes no 

bones about world government being its goal. "Study No. 7," published 
by the CFR on November 25, 1959, openly advocates "building a new 
international order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for 
peace [and] for social and economic change ... an international order 
. . . including states labeling themselves as " Socialist' [Communist]." 
To accomplish this, the CFR says, we must "gradually increase the 
authority of the UN" until it becomes the official government of the 
world.' Since you cannot have sovereignty at the national level and at 
the international, UN level 

at the same time, the CFR is advocating the abolition of the United 
States as a sovereign government. 

Richard Rovere, in his half-kidding and wholly-in-earnest 
treatise called The American Establishment, referred to the CFR as the 
American "Presidium." This is an accurate description, for like the 
Russian Presidium, the CFR only presides. It is the Establishment, but 
not the inner core, or "inner steering committee" as George Orwell 
called it, of the Establishment. Fortunately, someone who has been on 
the inside, or very close to it, has written a book about it. He is Dr. 
Carroll Quigley, professor of history at the Foreign Service School of 
Georgetown University. He formerly taught at Princeton and Harvard as 
well as at the Army and Navy War Colleges. Professor Quigley 's 
monumental book, Tragedy and Hope, 2 contains amazing revelations 
concerning the cligue of kingmakers who run international politics and 
international finance. W. Cleon Skousen, Ph.D., who served for sixteen 
years in the FBI (including several years as personal assistant to J. 
Edgar Hoover) , and who now teaches at Brigham Young University, stated 
in his recently published, 130-page review of Quigley 's book: 

Political conspiracies also have a way of reaching the public, 
because someone on the inside is willing to tell the story. I have 
waited for thirty years for somebody on the inside of the modern 
political power structure to talk. At last, somebody has. 3 

Dr. Skousen, who calls his review The Naked Capitalist, begins by 
commenting : 

When Dr. Quigley decided to write his 1,300 page book called 
Tragedy and Hope, he knew he was deliberately exposing one of the best 
kept secrets in the world. As one of the elite "insiders," he knew the 
scope of this power complex and he knew that its leaders hope to 
eventually attain total global control. Furthermore, Dr. Quigley makes 
it clear throughout his book that by and large he warmly supports the 
goals and purposes of the 

"network." But if that is the case, why would he want to expose this 
world-wide conspiracy and disclose many of its most secret operations? 
Obviously, disclosing the existence of a mammoth power network which is 
trying to take over the world could not help but arouse the vigorous 
resistance of the millions of people who are its intended victims. So 
why did Dr. Quigley write this book? 

His answer appears in a number of places but is especially 
forceful and clear on pages 979-980. He says, in effect, that it is now 
too late for the little people to turn back the tide. In a spirit of 
kindness he is therefore urging them not to fight the noose which is 
already around their necks. He feels certain that those who do will 
only choke themselves to death ... .4 

Quigley's qualifications for writing about the international 
conspiracy are as imposing as are those of ex-F131 man Skousen, author 
of the national best seller The Naked Communist, for exposing the real 
import of Tragedy and Hope. Quigley says of this Insider conspiracy: 

1 know of the operations of this network because I have studied 
it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 
1960 's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to 
it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to 
it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past 
and recently, to a few of its policies . . . but in general my chief 
difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I 
believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. 
[Emphasis added.] 5 

Skousen observes: 

Dr. Quigley admits he is telling more than his comrades-inarms 
would care to have disclosed. They want their conspiratorial subversion 
to be kept a secret. Dr. Quigley thinks it is time people knew who was 
running things .... 

The real value of Tragedy and Hope is not so much as a "history 
of the world in our time" (as its subtitle suggests), but rather as a 
bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there 
actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has 
succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the 
entire human race. 

Of course, we should be quick to recognize that no small group 
could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks 
of life were "in on the take" and were willing to knuckle down to the 
iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes 

Who is behind this conspiracy to control the world? Skousen 
writes : 

He [Quigley) points out that during the past two centuries when 
the peoples of the world were gradually winning their political freedom 
from the dynastic monarchies, the major banking families of Europe and 
America were actually reversing the trend by setting up new dynasties 
of political control through the formation of international financial 
combines . 

Dr. Quigley points out that these banking dynasties had learned 
that all governments must have sources of revenue from which to borrow 
in times of emergency. They had also learned that by providing such 
funds from their own private resources, they could make both kings and 
democratic leaders tremendously subservient to their will. It had 
proven to be a most effective means of controlling political 
appointments and deciding political issues.? 

Quigley reveals that these international banking dynasties 
established a vast network to control government through the control of 
money. Quigley writes: 

The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants 
of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male 
descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first 
cousins or even nieces. Rothschild's five sons, established at branches 

in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated 
together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but 
rarely excelled. 

The names of some of these [other] banking families are 
familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Baring, 
Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, 
Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and [J. P.] Morgan. 8 

We should here caution the reader that we are not talking about 
his personal banker down on the corner, who has nothing to do with the 
international intriguers we are discussing. Secrecy has always been the 
byword of the international bankers. According to Quigley: 

The influence of financial capitalism and of the international 
bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on 
governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to 
persuade both of these to accept two "axioms" of its own ideology. Both 
of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak 
and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with 
control of the money system . . . . To do this it was necessary to 
conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the 
nature of money and its methods of operation. 9 

The aifns of this stealthy crew are spelled out by Quigley: 

In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial 
capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a 
world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the 
political system of each country and the economy of the world as a 
whole. The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the 
central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements 
arrived at in freguent private meetings and conferences, to 

Through this system the international bankers hope to gain 
control over the world's natural resources, finance, transportation, 
and commerce. In order to do this they must first eliminate their 
competitors. The only way they can do it is 

by gaining control of government and establishing socialism. To 
accomplish this on a world-wide basis you need a world government - a 
socialist world government. Most people cannot understand why many of 
the super-rich like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, and Fords are 
socialists. "They have far more to lose under socialism than I," is a 
typical comment. People make that statement because they believe that 
socialism is really what the super-rich want them to believe socialism 
is, i.e., a movement to divide the wealth. But if these super-rich 
international bankers wanted to divide their wealth they could do it 
right now. There is no law against the Rockefellers giving away their 
billions. Instead, the super-rich almost totally avoid paying the taxes 
that finance the socialistic giveaway programs they force on the 
middle-class. They hide their wealth in foundations where it compounds 
tax-free. The concept that socialism is a dividethe-wealth program is 
held by revolutionaries, visionary Utopians, and misguided idealists, 
who are promoting, in the name of fighting the super-rich, the 
socialism the Insiders want. Socialism in practice is not a share-the- 
wealth program but a consolidate-and-control-the-wealth program. When 
you understand this, the seeming paradox of the promotion of socialism 

by the power-hungry super-rich described by Quigley, becomes no paradox 
at all. Most people mistakenly believe that wealthy people are 
conservative, that they believe in free enterprise and are opposed to 
government controls. In many cases this is true, but it is not true of 
the super-rich cartel monopolists who want to control the world. These 
people are not on the Right, but on the Left. They don't want 
competition, they want monopoly. They work through the Left because the 
.Left promotes government controls, and only by government controls can 
these monopolists eliminate their competition. 

Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, which does not 
consider itself Conservative, has observed: "Today the 
Establishment has unguestionably adopted liberalism . . . ."" The 
Establishment opposes Conservatives because Conservatives oppose 
government controls and a world super-state. The Left advocates 
controls and a world government. This is why these billionaires work 
and finance revolutionary movements whose objective is ostensibly to 
destroy the super-rich. Quigley admits in effect that there is a 
conspiracy bigger than the Communist conspiracy. He writes: 

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an 
international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the 
way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this 
network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no 
aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and 
freguently does so. 12 

Why has this Establishment conspiracy never been exposed? Many 
people have tried to expose it. The chief weapon used to stop the 
exposure is ridicule. Nobody likes to be ridiculed. If one calls 
attention to the strange alliance between the international bankers and 
their cohorts, and the Left, the retort is usually a sneering, 
"Obviously you believe in the conspiracy theory of history." In most 
cases that stops the person who is trying to expose the conspiracy. The 
connotation is that a person who believes there is a conspiracy seeking 
financial and political control of the world is a paranoid who believes 
that every Liberal college professor gets his orders for the day in a 
special morning telegram from conspiracy headguarters . Since sneering 
at the idea of a conspiracy is fashionable, millions of well-meaning 
people who know absolutely nothing about it repeat the sneering 
statements of ridicule. Nobody tries to refute the facts. They cannot 
be refuted. And why try when ridicule works so effectively? 

But ridicule is only half of the Establishment's weapon system to 
avoid exposure. The Establishment's media simply 

never discuss the existence of the interlocking organizations and 
individuals within the CFR's orbit. CFR members control such mass media 
as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Life, Time, 
Newsweek, and the Columbia Broadcasting System and National 
Broadcasting Company. The Establishment has also spent enormous amounts 
of money to steer historians away from subjects it feels are dangerous. 
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes wrote in his The Struggle Against the 
Historical Blackout 

It may be said, with great restraint, that never since the Dark 
and Middle Ages, have there been so many powerful forces organized and 
alerted against tile assertion and acceptance of historical truth . . . 
. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations . . . 
intend to prevent, if they can, a repetition of what they call in the 

vernacular the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I . 
. . .13 

Whittaker Chambers, the man who exposed Alger Hiss (CFR) as a 
Soviet spy,, made this observation: 

No one who has, even once, lived close to the making of history 
can ever again suppose that it is made the way the history books tell 
it. With rare exceptions such books are like photographs. They catch a 
surface image. Often as not, they distort it. The secret forces working 
behind and below the historical surface they seldom catch. 14 

But people do not reject all conspiracies. They can believe 
businesses conspire to fix prices. They can believe in the conspiracy 
of organized crime - Cosa Nostra. It is not that they reject conspiracy 
per se, they just reject the idea that there is an international 
conspiracy that uses the Communists and other Leftwing movements, and 
works to gain control over governments. Cosa Nostra is an example of 
how people will accept conspiracy in one area of human activity while 
they reject it in another. Until Joseph Valachi sang to a Congressional 
committee some years ago, people knew so little about Cosa Nostra that 
they didn't even know its name. They called it the Mafia, and many 
people vehemently denied that such an organization existed. 

What is the difference between Cosa Nostra man Lucky Luciano and, 
say, Nelson Rockefeller? The only essential difference is that 
Rockefeller had wealth, background, and education. Totally cunning and 
absolutely ruthless, Luciano scratched his way to the top of the Cosa 
Nostra heap. Though altogether despicable, he was an able, ambitious, 
and talented man. If Luciano had been born to a patrician family, had 
attended swank private academies and then matriculated at Harvard, 
possessing the same brilliant mind and amoral personality, he would 
have come to an inescapable conclusion: Why spend your time pushing 
numbers, drugs, and dames, when you can get into government where the 
real money and power are? A socialist government controls people, and 
when one controls people one has absolute power over their economic 
activity too. The advance of Socialism in the world is no natural 
phenomenon, as the Internationalists pretend. Like depressions, it is a 
sinister promotion by the Insiders and their allies. 

The Old Testament is full of conspiracies, most of them for power 
over government. Even a cursory study of Rome or Athens shows the role 
played by numerous conspiracies. As we climb the historical ladder to 
modern times, the number of political conspiracies increases; but we 
are not to believe , that any are operative today - that is the 
"conspiracy theory of history." What is a conspiracy? Liberals would 
have us believe that Conservatives conjure up mysterious men in long 
black overcoats and slouch hats who meet in closets and mysteriously 
issue orders or exchange information. Here is the ridicule technique in 
action! All a conspiracy is, is men planning together for an unlawful 
purpose. "Conspiratori- 

alists" - those who hold the "conspiracy theory of history" - agree 
with FDR, who said, "Nothing just happens in politics. If something 
happens you can be sure it was planned that way." The idea of "smoke- 
filled rooms" suggests secret plans being made, does it not? There are 
only two theories of history - (1) that things happen because they were 
planned that way, and (2) that everything happens by accident and 
nobody makes any plans. The latter is the idea that ought to be 
ridiculed, for it considers the observable reality - that America has 

been moving Left for thirty-five years, that we have persistent 
inflation, that we fight endless "no-win" wars, and that for twenty- 
five years we have been constantly losing to the Communists - to be a 
total accident. As former Secretary of Defense James Forrestal once 
remarked, "Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were 
merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor. "15 
Abraham Lincoln observed in his "House Divided" speech: 

We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are 
the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, 
different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different 
times and places and by different workmen Stephen, Franklin, Roger and 
James, for instance - and when we see these timbers joined together, 
and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the 
tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and 
proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective 
places, and not a piece too many or too few - not omitting even 
scaffolding - or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in 
the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in - in 
such a case, we find it impossible to not believe that Stephen and 
Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the 
beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before 
the first lick was struck. 16 

The very essence of a conspiracy is that its perpetrators 
must convince the public that it does not exist. This, of course, 
necessitates lying. In order to be a conspirator one must be a liar - 
and a convincing one, who conveys sincerity in whatever he says. The 
conspiracy also must mask its goals in order to get idealists to do its 
work for it, and it does so by using humanitarian terms like "seeking 
social justice," "ending poverty," and "bringing about world peace." 
Those who think they are helping the poor are only solidifying the 
power of the rich. The great historian Oswald Spengler realized this 
half a century ago, and wrote in his monumental Decline and Fall of the 
West : 

There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has 
not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by 
money, and for the time being permitted by money - and that without the 
idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact. 

Quigley picks up the threads of the two-centuries-old movement to 
control the world by discussing the role of Cecil Rhodes in England 
during the latter part of the last century. Rhodes, working as a front 
man for Lord Rothschild, had conguered Southern Africa with its 
enormous mineral wealth. Rhodes' friendly biographer, Sara Millin, 
reveals his goal: "The government of the world was Rhodes' simple 
desire." With a world government under their control, Rhodes and his 
international banker partners would control the wealth of the world. 
Quigley notes: 

In the middle 1890 's Rhodes had a personal income of at least a 
million pounds sterling a year (then about five million dollars) which 
was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually 
overdrawn on his account. These purposes centered on his desire to 
federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all the habitable 
portions of the world under their control. 17 

Frank Aydelotte, a founding member of the CFR, in his 

book, American Rhodes Scholarships, tells of Rhodes will setting up a 

"secret society": 

The seven wills which Cecil Rhodes made between the ages of 24 
and 46 [Rhodes died at age forty-eight] constitute a kind of spiritual 
autobiography .... Best known are the first (the Secret Society Will 
. . . ) , and the last, which established the Rhodes Scholarships . . . 

In his first will Rhodes states his aim still more specifically: 
"The extension of British rule throughout the world . . . the 
foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible 
and promote the interests of humanity." 

The "Confession of Faith" enlarges upon these ideas. The model 
for this proposed secret society was the Society of Jesus, though he 
mentions also the Masons. [Emphasis added.] 

Aydelotte tells us, "In 1888 Rhodes made his third will . . . 
leaving everything to Lord Rothschild." Apparently for strategic 
reasons, Lord Rothschild was subsequently removed from the forefront of 
the scheme. Professor Quigley reveals that Lord Rosebery "replaced his 
father-in-law, Lord Rothschild, in Rhodes' secret group and was made a 
Trustee under Rhodes' next (and last) will." Professor Quigley writes 
of the formalization of Rhodes' "secret society": 

They were remarkably successful in these aims because England's 
most sensational journalist William T. Stead (1849-1912), an ardent 
social reformer and imperialist, brought them into association with 
Rhodes. This association was formally established on February 5, 1891, 
when Rhodes and Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had 
been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to 
be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Esher) , and [Alfred] Milner were to form 
an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, 
Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as 
potential members of a "Circle of Initiates, " while there was to be an 
outer circle known as the "Association of Helpers" (later organized by 
Milner as the Round Table organization) . 18 

The "secret society," which fitted into the structure of the much 
older Illuminati, was organized on the pattern of "circles within 
circles," as was the Order of the Illuminati itself. The Round Table 
organization, which was not part of the innermost circle of the Great 
Conspiracy, was later to spawn the Council on Foreign Relations. 

During World War I the Round Table group and its allies actually 
promoted and financed the Russian Revolution, despite the fact that 
Russia under the Czar and under Kerensky was an ally of Britain and the 
U.S. The Communists had made a deal with the Germans to make peace if 
they took over and thereby to free the German armies to fight the 
Americans and British on the Western front. Therefore any encouragement 
by Englishmen or Americans of the Communist takeover of Russia was 
clearly treason. 

Possibly the best source of information on the financing of the 
Russian Revolution is Czarism and the Revolution by an important White 
Russian named Arsene de Goulevitch, founder in France of the Union of 
Oppressed Peoples. In this volume, written in French and since 
translated into English, de Goulevitch notes: 

The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were 
neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of 
Lenin. The "real" money primarily came from certain British and 
American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to 
the Russian revolutionary cause .... 

De Goulevitch reveals that Milner, the key man in the secret 
Round Table organization, was in Russia at the time of .the Communist 
Revolution and was deeply involved. A footnote to the previous 
quotation contains this critical addition: 

On April 7, 1917, General Janin made the following entry in his 
diary ("Au G.C.C. Russe" - at Russian G.H.Q. - Le Monde Slave, Vol. 2, 
1927, pp. 296-297): Long interview with R., who 

confirmed what I had previously been told by M. After referring to the 
German hatred of himself and his family, he turned to the subject of 
the Revolution which, he claimed, was engineered by the English and, 
more precisely, by Sir George Buchanan and Lord [Alfred] Milner. 
Petrograd at the time was teeming with English .... He could, he 
asserted, name the streets and the numbers of the houses in which 
British agents were quartered. They were reported, during the rising, 
to have distributed money to the soldiers and incited them to mutiny. 

The man who apparently was the major financial contributor to the 
overthrowing of Kerensky (remember, the Czar had already been 
overthrown) was Jacob Schiff of the Rothschild-connected banking firm 
of Kuhn, Loeb and Company in New York. The New York Journal-American 
noted on February 3, 1949: "Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, 
John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the 
final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." 

At the time of the Communist Revolution it was widely known and 
reported by American, British, French, and Dutch journalists and 
intelligence men in Russia that the international bankers were 
bankrolling the Bolsheviks. What was not understood was the reason. The 
international bankers hoped to get a full-blown world government out of 
World War I, but failing that, at least they could obtain a 
geographical base for their operation. Whether these international 
bankers today actually control Russia or whether they just cooperate 
with the Soviets is a moot point. But obviously they do not fear the 
Communists. Quigley admits, as noted earlier, that "this network, which 
we may identify as the Round Table Groups [including the CFR1, has no 
aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and 
frequently does so." '9 We know that after the Bolshevik Revolution the 
Insiders controlled Russia. It is doubtful that they would allow 
themselves to lose control. If 

they have somehow done so, it has not altered their attitudes and 
policies towards helping Communism. 

Evidence revealed in the three-volume work, The United States and 
Soviet Economic Development, by Antony Sutton of Stanford University's 
Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace, shows that CFR 
members began in 1919 to transfer American technology and know-how to 
the Soviet Union; they continue to do so today, with the blessing of 
the Nixon Administration. Russian Communism is the hammer and Finance 
Capitalism is the anvil. With these two instruments the world is to be 
pounded into one unified mass run by an elite group of international 
civil servants serving their masters, the Insiders. Former FBI-man W. 
Cleon Skousen, commenting on the Quigley book, states: 

. . . In a nutshell, Dr. Quigley has undertaken to expose what 
every insider like himself has known all along - that the world 
hierarchy of the dynastic super-rich is out to take over the entire 
planet, doing it with Socialistic legislation where possible, but 
having no reluctance to use Communist revolution where necessary. 2° 

The Communists are merely the "hatchet men" of an evil conspiracy 
that is far more sinister and diabolical than Communism itself. 
Communism did not create the Conspiracy, but the Conspiracy created 
Communism. And the men at the top of the Conspiracy are not Communists 
in the sense that the public understands the word. They are not loyal 
to Moscow or Peking or the United States. They are loyal to their own 
group of Insiders, who are seeking total world control. The late Dr. 
Bella Dodd, a former member of the National Committee of the Communist 
Party USA, who later became an active anti-Communist, told Dr. Skousen: 
"I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger 
conspiracy! "2' Skousen adds: 

Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some mysterious super- 
leadership right after World War II when the U.S. Communist Party had 
difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters 
reguiring immediate attention. The American Communist hierarchy was 
told that any time they had an emergency of this kind they should 
contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. 
Dodd noted that whenever the Party obtained instructions from any of 
these three men, Moscow always ratified them. 

What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that not one of these three 
contacts was a Russian. Nor were any of them Communists. In fact, all 
three were extremely wealthy American capitalists! 

Having the Communist world as an "enemy" provides an excuse for 
establishing ever higher taxes and ever more controls at home. We are 
kept fighting "the perpetual war for perpetual peace, " just as in 
Orwell's 1984. (Orwell, incidentally, was a Communist Party member who 
became aware that the Communist movement was merely a pawn in a 
conspiracy of gangsters.) "Busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels, " one 
of Shakespeare's characters recommends. Eventually, in the not far 
distant future, Americans will be beguiled into accepting a world 
government to "save us from Communism" and end the endless Vietnam-type 
wars. It is the old throw-Br ' er-Rabbit-into-the-briar-patch ploy. 

The Insider conspirators had hoped to achieve this world 
government as a result of World War I, under the League of Nations. But 
while President Woodrow Wilson was doing his best to restructure the 
world at Versailles, the anesthesia induced back home by 
internationalist propaganda was rapidly wearing off. As the 
negotiations revealed that one side had been about as guilty as the 
other, and all the glitter of the "moral crusade" evaporated with 
Wilson's vaunted "Fourteen Points," the "rubes back on Main Street" 
began to stir and wake. Reaction and disillusionment set in. 
Americans hardly wanted to get into a World Government 

with double-dealing European crooks whose specialty was secret treaty 
hidden behind secret treaty. The guest of honor, so to speak, stalked 
out of the banquet before the poisoned meal could be served. And 
without American participation there could be no effective World 
Government . 

Aroused public opinion made it obvious that the U.S. Senate dared 
not ratify a treaty saddling the country with such an internationalist 

commitment. The American public had somehow to be sold the idea of 
internationalism and World Government, and it was for precisely that 
purpose that the CFR was made to order. 

When the members of the Round Table group saw the handwriting on 
the wall, they decided to form a network of front organizations in the 
major Western nations to "educate" the nationalistic boobs to accept 
world government. This led to the founding of the Council on Foreign 
Relations as a part of this network. According to Professor Quigley: 

At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the 
organization of this system [the Round Table Group] had to be greatly 
extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who 
established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the 
existing Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal 
Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the 
existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the 
Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and 
Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group. 
The American organizers were dominated by the large number of Morgan 
"experts," including Lamont and Beer, who had gone to the Paris Peace 
Conference and there became close friends with the similar group of 
English "experts" which had been recruited by the Milner group. In 
fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International 
Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris. 
The Council of RIIA (which by Curtis 's energy came to be housed in 
Chatham House, across St. James's Sguare from the Astors, and was soon 
known by the name of this headquarters) and the board of the Council on 
Foreign Relations have carried ever since the marks of their origin. 22 

As the decades have passed, the Morgan group has faded in 
strength and been replaced by the Rockefellers, whose number one 
business now is not oil, but banking. But all of the major 
international banking families are represented in the CFR and have been 
since its founding. These families include such familiar names as the 
Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Lamonts, the Lehmans, the Schiffs, the 
Warburgs, the Kahns, and their hirelings. Their scions were often 
closely linked together by business and family ties both here and in 
Europe. Quigley says: 

. . . the relationship between the financial circles of London 
and those of the eastern United States . . . reflects one of the most 
powerful influences in twentieth-century American and world history. 
The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called, 
perhaps facetiously, the English and American Establishments. There is, 
however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which 
reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which 
the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in 
the belief that they are attacking the Communists. This is particularly 
true when these attacks are directed, as they so freguently are, at 
"Harvard Socialism," or at "Left-wing newspapers" like The New York 
Times and the Washington Post, or at foundations . . . .23 

There is a strong interlocking directorate between the CFR and 
the socialism-promoting Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations. 
These and many other foundations have been working for decades to bring 
socialism to America and to promote concepts of world government. In 
doing so they had no aversion to employing men with Communist 

backgrounds, until a Congressional investigation forced them to replace 
Communist-linked Leftists with Establishment Leftists. Quigley admits: 
It was this group of people [the Eastern Establishment] , whose 
wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding 
[sic], who provided much of the framework of influence which the 
Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United 
States in the 1930 's. It must be recognized that the power that these 
energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist 
power but was ultimately the power of the international financial 
coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were 
aroused, as they were by 1950, it was, a fairly simple matter to get 
rid of the Red sympathizers. [Emphasis added.] 24 

This, of course, raises the guestion of just who is using whom? 
It is always assumed that it is the Communists who dupe others into 
doing their work. In most cases this is undoubtedly true; however, it 
strains credulity to believe that men who are the world's shrewdest 
businessmen and bankers can be perennial suckers in dealing with 
Communists. Clearly there are Insiders manipulating both ends of the 
show . 

The Reece Committee attempted to investigate this matter. Norman 
Dodd, chief investigator for the Committee, was told by the then- 
President of the Ford Foundation that the purpose of his Foundation 
"was to so alter American society that it could be comfortably merged 
with that of the Soviet Union." Dodd was then told that this was being 
done on "orders from the White House." Quigley says of the Reece 
Committee's investigation of tax-exempt foundations: 

It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be 
unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the "most respected" 
newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, 
would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the 
publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An 
interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the 
interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather 
guietly. 25 

Dodd maintains that when the investigation began probing 

into "the so-called legitimate world" that is the real nerve center of 

the Communist movement, the investigation was guashed. 

Dan Smoot, like Skousen a former FBI agent, reveals that 
Communists have operated within the CFR itself: 

Among the most influential of CFR members during the late 1930 's 
and early 1940 's, when the CFR cabal was taking control of policy- 
making functions inside the federal government, were such people as 
Alger Hiss and Lauchlin Currie, later identified as Soviet espionage 
agents; and Owen Lattimore, later identified as a "conscious, 
articulate instrument of the Soviet international conspiracy." 

I do not intend to imply that the Council on Foreign Relations 
ever was a communist organization. Boasting among its past members four 
Presidents of the United States (Hoover, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon) 
and many other high officials, both civilian and military, the CFR can 
be termed, by those who agree with its objectives, a "patriotic" 
organization . 

The fact, however, that communists worked for many years as 
influential members of the CFR indicates something about the CFR's 

objectives. The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations 
(however well-intentioned many of its members may be) is the same as 
the ultimate aim of international communism: to create a one-world 
socialist system and make the United States a part of it. 26 

The CFR serves as a giant lobby within the government, the 
foundations, banking, big business, communications, and the academy to 
promote its one-world designs. It does this by promoting increased aid 
and trade with the Communist countries, disarmament, increased foreign 
aid, endless no-win wars, and the surrendering of sovereignty to world 
organizations. The primary vehicle is to be the United Nations, which 
will serve to run the Insiders' world monopoly. The UN is largely the 
creature of the CFR (sometimes called the Council For Revolution) . 
Forty-seven CFR members attended the San Francisco Conference that 
founded the UN, and 

the Rockefeller family donated the New York City land upon which the UN 
building was constructed. 

Dan Smoot, considered by many to be the most sound and 
penetrating researcher and reporter of our time, published a book 
called The Invisible Government. In his foreword Mr. Smoot wrote: 

. . . I am convinced that the Council on Foreign Relations, 
together with a great number of other associated tax-exempt 
organizations, constitutes the invisible government which sets the 
major policies of the federal government; exercises controlling 
influence on government officials who implement the policies; and 
through massive and skillful propaganda, influences Congress and the 
public to support the policies. 

I am convinced that the objective of this invisible government is 
to convert America into a socialist state and then make it a unit in a 
one-world socialist system. 27 

CFR members have virtually run the administrations of Franklin D. 
Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon 
Johnson, and Richard Nixon. This is the real reason why "there isn't a 
dime's worth of difference" - why despite campaign promises our policy 
of appeasing the Communists never changes. As the Chicago Tribune 
noted, in referring to the Nixon State Department: "The more it 
changes, the more it remains the same." 

One of the primary goals of the Council on Foreign Relations has 
always been to make the Democrat and Republican parties as much alike 
in their actual policies as possible. The game is to make the two 
parties appear to the public to be different while they act the same - 
the real control being hidden in the inner sanctum of the CFR 
headquarters in New York. Is it not natural that conspirators would try 
to control both, or all, sides of the conflict, political or otherwise? 
This has always been the strategy of the Marxists, and it was also 
followed by the J. P. Morgan 

interests in America even before the founding of the CFR. According to 
Professor Quigley: 

. . . they [the Morgan partners] expected they would be able to 
control both political parties equally. Indeed, some of them intended 
to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in 
public office in order to conceal their own influence . . . .28 

Quigley adds : 

More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate 
the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was 
relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and 
eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The 
purpose was not to destroy, dominate or take over . . . .29 

The purpose was to guide the Left into doing what the Insiders 
wanted. Many of these movements were later absorbed into the Democratic 
Party, and when this happened their Wall Street-international banker 
connections went with them. "The associations between Wall Street and 
the Left . . . are really survivals of the associations between the 
Morgan Bank and the Left. To Morgan all political parties were simply 
organizations to be used, and the firm was careful to keep a foot in 
all camps . "3o 

When the English Round Table Groups started the Council on 
Foreign Relations in conjunction with the MorganRockef eller 
organizations, this policy became standard operating procedure for the 
CFR. The Morgan partners have divided themselves between the Democratic 
and Republican parties. The Rockefellers have traditionally been 
Republicans, while other international banking families active in the 
CFR, like the Schiffs, Warburgs, Kahns, , Lehmans, and Harrimans, have 
been Democrats. 

CFR members include such Democratic party powers as 

Dean Acheson, George Ball, William Benton, Chester Bowles, McGeorge 
Bundy, Ellsworth Bunker, David Dubinsky, Henry Fowler, John Kenneth 
Galbraith, Arthur Goldberg, Hubert Humphrey, Nicholas Katzenbach, 
Eugene McCarthy, the late Walter Reuther, Walt W. Rostow, Dean Rusk, 
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Stuart Symington, Cyrus Vance, Adam 
Yarmolinsky, and the late brothers Robert and John Kennedy. Among the 
CFR members who are major movers and shakers of the Republican party 
are Clifford Case, Thomas E. Dewey, Paul Hoffman, Jacob Javits, Ogden 
Reid, David, John, and Nelson Rockefeller, and Harold Stassen. CFR 
members in one party are supposed to be the mortal political enemies of 
those in the other party. It is like going to the theater to see a 
play. In the cast are heroes and villains and we become emotionally 
involved, cheering for the good guys and yearning for the bad guys to 
get their just deserts. But after the play is over the whole cast goes 
out to have pizza together. They aren't really enemies, they are 
friends. They work for the same script writer, the same director, and 
the same financial "angels" behind the scenes. And, of course, you buy 
a ticket to see the play. The CFR play has been showing in Washington 
for forty years, and the tickets have been very expensive in both money 
and blood. The Chicago Tribune's editorial of December 9, 1950, on the 
CFR still applies: 

The members of the Council [on Foreign Relations] are persons of 
more than average influence in the community. They have used the 
prestige that their wealth, their social position, and their education 
have given them to lead their country toward bankruptcy and military 
debacle. They should look at their hands. There is blood on them - the 
dried blood of the last war and the fresh blood of the present one [the 
Korean War] . 

The tickets to the CFR play in Vietnam have cost America nearly 
350,000 dead and wounded in that "no-win" war. 

As in many plays, the actors can, if need be, play 
interchangeable roles. An example of CFR bipartisanship was contained 
in an exclusive interview given to U.S. News & World Report shortly 
after the election by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, who stated: 

I am very proud of the contributions made to the Administration 
by so many outstanding good Republicans . . . such as Secretaries 
McNamara and Dillon (Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and 
Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon) , CIA Director John McCone, 
Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, and 
distinguished Republican business and community leaders such as John 
McCloy and Robert Anderson. 

All the Republicans mentioned by LBJ were members of the 
Communist-appeasing Council on Foreign Relations. Naturally, none of 
these appeasement-minded Republicans could support the anti-Communist 
position of Senator Barry Goldwater during his campaign against LBJ. 

The CFR, unknown to all but a comparative handful of Americans, 
has made a tragicomedy out of Republican vs. Democrat politics at the 
Presidential level. The CFR has concentrated on the executive branch, 
and competition between parties at the congressional level is much more 
real. When someone points out that there is not a dime's worth of 
difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, even in this 
inflationary age, they mean at the apex of the party, not the grass 
roots. At the grass-roots level the Republican Party is basically 
conservative and the Democrat Party (outside of the South) is basically 
liberal. If you go to a Young Republican meeting and then a Young 
Democrat meeting, you won't have the feeling that there isn't a dime's 
worth of difference! But as you go up the political ladder from the 
grass roots of both parties, they become more and more similar until 
they merge behind the scenes at the top. 

Grass-roots Republicans and Democrats may hack and kick at each other 
all they want, but the policies at the top never change. 

The typical American gets excited during an election by campaign 
promises like Nixon's to bring "new leadership," because "we can't be 
led into the '70's by the men who stumbled and bumbled and fumbled 
their way through the 60 "s." But after the election when the same 
disastrous policies are followed, Mr. Typical shrugs his shoulders and 
returns to his TV set with the fading hope that the next administration 
will somehow bring to government as much common sense as is found among 
taxi-drivers. He does not realize that the election promises were bait 
and that he is really being given the choice between ex-CFR member 
Tweedle-Dick and present CFR member Tweedle-Dumphrey . As far as the 
election goes, it made little difference to the nation as a whole, 
because the CFR hierarchy is going to continue to call the shots; but 
it made an enormous amount of difference to Mr. Nixon and Mr. Humphrey. 
While Mr. Nixon lived the life of a king (with the responsibilities of 
a king, to be sure) and accepted the perguisites of the office, Mr. 
Humphrey was freezing his toes off as a teacher at Macalester College 
in Minnesota. Serving as President for the CFR is much like being the 
student body president of a high school. Nobody seriously believes that 
the high school student body president really runs the high school, but 
he does have some power and lots of glory and prestige. Being President 
of the United States sure beats teaching Poli-Sci I to smart-aleck 
sophomores at Macalester College. (Mr. Humphrey, of course, has now 
escaped the great unwashed at Macalester and returned to the Senate, 

where he can once again be a fiery radical for the downtrodden 
international bankers behind the CFR.) 

Mr. Nixon joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1960. (They 
ask you to join, you don't ask them. Try writing 

to the CFR saying that you have heard they are a very democratic 
organization and you would like to join. Oh, do they discriminate!) 
According to former FBI man Dan Smoot, Mr. Nixon was a member of the 
CFR until 1964. Nixon's official attitude about the CFR and his former 
membership in it was expressed in a very defensive form letter which 
his staff sent in answer to inguiries during the 1968 political 
campaign. The following is a guotation from the letter: 

Mr. Nixon has never attended a meeting of the Council on Foreign 
Relations. He is not currently a member, although several years ago he 
shared membership with former President Eisenhower, former President 
Hoover, and a host of other distinguished Americans .... 

The Council on Foreign Relations ... is purely and simply a 
group which supports independent research in world affairs. It takes no 
positions. It is not a policy-making body. It advocates nothing but 
research of foreign affairs as a contribution to public opinion. The 
individual member is in no way bound to any such findings. 31 

The standard defense of the CFR is that it is an organization 
whose membership has included some of our most wealthy, famous, and 
powerful men. This, of course, begs the guestion. It is also passed off 
as a mere advisory body, but this is misleading. As ultra-liberal 
columnist Joseph Kraft, himself a member, admitted in his "School for 
Statesmen" article in Harpers it is much more than that, and "has been 
the seat of . . . basic government decisions, has set the context for 
many more, and has repeatedly served as a recruiting ground for ranking 
officials. "32 

The idea that the CFR "advocates nothing but research" is 
absolutely untrue. Its "Study No. 7," published in A Strategy for the 
Sixties, makes very clear the fact that it advocates an extremely 
radical program of accommodation with the Communists. It is true that a 
member is not technically 

bound by any of the CFR's findings, and there are a handful of members 
who have rebelled against the brainwash; but the Establishment's 
control goes far beyond the mere bylaws of the CFR. 

Nixon's CFR membership became an issue in 1962, during his 
Republican gubernatorial primary contest with Joe Shell in California. 
After that Mr. Nixon either dropped out of the CFR or went underground. 
The CFR admits that it is sometimes necessary for its members to go 
underground. On page 42 of its 1952 Report, the CFR stated: "Members of 
the Council are sometimes obliged, by their acceptance of government 
posts in Washington and elsewhere, to curtail or suspend for a time 
their participation in Council activities." Notice that Mr. Nixon's 
form letter mentioned no reason for his having dropped out of this 
organization that he so staunchly defends. Was the reason political 
expediency? He has never repudiated the CFR and supports all of its 
policies. He also wrote an article in October 1967 for the 45th 
Anniversary Issue of the CFR's publication, Foreign Affairs Quarterly. 
The article was entitled "Asia after Vietnam, " and was an obvious 
attempt to court the Liberal intellectuals who read Foreign Affairs, 
for in it he said things that were clearly different from his standard 
campaign rhetoric. The article followed the CFR line 100 per cent, 
calling for "the evolution of a new world order" based on "regional 

approaches to development needs." These proposals later became known as 
"the Nixon doctrine." 

Whether or not Mr. Nixon is a secret member of the CFR is a moot 
point. He is obviously much further up the Establishment ladder than 
mere CFR membership would indicate. The proof of the political pudding 
is in the appointing, and Mr. Nixon's appointments show that his 
administration is as much dominated by the Communistaccommodating, one- 
world-promoting CFR as those of his last five predecessors. As of 
January 1971, Mr. Nixon had 

appointed to high political position no less than 107 members of the 
CFR. In fact, Mr. Nixon seems to be going for the record. Imagine, Mr. 
Nixon appoints 107 members of an organization from which he apparently 
dropped out for reasons of political expediency - because his 
membership in it was a political hot potato. 

To illustrate the extent of CFR power in Washington at the 
present time, consider some of these important CFR appointments made by 
President Nixon: 

Henry A. Kissinger, Chief foreign policy advisor (directly from 
the paid staff of the CFR) ; 

Henry Cabot Lodge, chief negotiator at the Paris Peace Talks; 

Charles Yost, Ambassador to the United Nations (also a paid staff 
member of the CFR) ; 

Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; 

Harlan Cleveland, U.S. Ambassador to NATO; 

George Ball, foreign policy consultant; 

Robert Murphy, special consultant on international affairs; 

Dr. Paul McCracken, chief economic aide; 
Ellsworth Bunker, U.S. Ambassador to Saigon; 

Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster, chief military policy advisor; 

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of the Atomic Energy commission; 

Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East 
and South Asia; 

Jacob Beam, Ambassador to the Soviet Union; and 

Gerald Smith, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency . 

The Elephant That Brays 

Control over the GOP by the Establishment Insiders is not 
something new or ephemeral; it dates back at least to 1936. The 
Establishment has controlled the Pachyderm Party by wheeling and 
dealing to control its Presidential nomination. Every Republican 
convention pits the Conservative Congressional wing against the 
Establishment-controlled Presidential wing. Naturally, the media try 
hard to make it appear that the Conservatives, always dubbed the "Old 
Guard, " are a minority pitted against the "progressive" or "moderate" 
wing of the party, which represents the grass-roots "little people" of 
the international banking fraternity. 

The story behind this wheeling and dealing to keep the nomination 
in the control of the Establishment is one of great importance. If real 
Republicans are ever to recover their party, they must understand the 
powers they are dealing with. 

As the 1920 's roared on, the stock market climbed to dizzy 
heights, fueled by ever-increasing amounts of paper money pumped into 
circulation by the Federal Reserve, which had been established 
following an enormous lobbying campaign by Colonel Edward M. House, a 
founder of the Council on Foreign Relations; Felix Warburg, a charter 
CFR member; and other Wall Street Insiders. The Federal Reserve was 
supposed to make America depression-proof, and to represent a giant 
step forward in "democracy." Just why numerous international bankers 
were so interested in "de- 
mocracy" was not explained. In the summer of 1929, after eight years of 
easy money promoted by an artifically low interest rate set by the 
Federal Reserve, the "Fed" reversed itself and, in order to stop 
runaway inflation, bounced the interest rate sky high. This in effect 
stuck a pin into the stock market balloon, which began its crash in 
October 1929, proving that America indeed was not "depression-proof." 
Popular mythology has it that the stock market crash was a great blow 
to Wall Street. To the vast majority of patriotic and honest bankers 
and brokers it was, since Wall Street became a whipping boy during the 
'30's. But if you are an Insider, more money is made faster during a 
depression than at any other time. Insiders who got out of the market 
at its height, in the middle of 1929, were able to buy stocks back at 
an 80 per cent discount four years later. Others made enormous wealth 
by being "short" in the market and riding the Dow-Jones-average 
toboggan down to great profits. 

In 1932, the Democrats elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to office on 
one of the most Conservative platforms ever written by any party in the 
history of the United States. Of course, the platform was mere pretense 
- "dialectics," as the Communists would call it. FDR , had been a Wall 
Street banker, and he was propelled into office by the Insiders, who 
saw a chance to capitalize on the chaos they had caused. When FDR in 
his fireside chats railed against the "malefactors of great wealth, " 
building the dialectical image that he was "a traitor to his class," he 
was really throwing the Insiders into the briar patch, right where they 
wanted to be, like Br'er Rabbit in the Uncle Remus stories. FDR began 
deficit spending, which over a period of years has resulted in hundreds 
of billions of dollars of interest profits to bankers. The bulk of 
these profits have gone to a handful of New York banks. 

In order to perpetuate deficit spending and launch an "America 
last" foreign policy, the Insiders had to assert the 

same control over the Republican Party that they already possessed over 
the Democrat Party. In 1936, in a confidential meeting in keeping with 
the political legend of the smokefilled hotel room, a group of Insiders 
laid long-range plans to control the Republican Party. We know of the 
meeting from an account by Dr. Glenn Frank, president of the University 
of Wisconsin, whom the Insiders mistakenly believed they could trust.' 
The presiding Insider at this secret meeting in the royal suite on the 
21st floor of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York was Thomas Lamont 
(CFR) , senior partner in J. P. Morgan & Company. According to Professor 
Quigley, Lamont was the most important connection between the 
international bankers and the hard-core Left in America. Quigley states 
that the chief evidence against the Lamont family 

. . . can be found in the files of HUAC which show Tom Lamont, 
his wife Flora, and his son Corliss as sponsors and financial angels to 
almost a score of extreme Left organizations including the Communist 
Party itself .... During this whole period of over two decades, 
Corliss Lamont, with the full support of his parents, was one of the 
chief figures in "fellow traveler" circles and one of the chief 
spokesmen for the Soviet point of view ... .2 

Six other prominent financiers and industrialists were also 
present. The purpose of the meeting was to "decide" who the Republican 
nominee for President should be. At the meeting it was generally agreed 
that their support would be thrown to Governor Alfred M. Landon of 
Kansas, who, of course, never stood a chance to win, because there was 
no beating Roosevelt in 1936. Support of Landon by the Lamont cligue 
was significant. Influential Liberal Republicans such as "Ogden Mills 
[CFR] ; Eugene Meyer [CFR, financier and owner of the Washington Post], 
Winthrop Aldrich [CFR; a Rockefeller relative], recognized that . . . 
Landon might be 

adapted to their own purposes. "3 Landon had boasted, "I have cooperated 
with the New Deal to the best of my ability, " and had even issued 
public praise of New Deal designer Rexford Guy Tugwell, devoted radical 
socialist. 4 When Landon went down the electoral drain, the New Deal was 
safe for four more years. The Insiders had had nothing to lose either 
way . 

Nineteen forty was a crucial year for the Insiders. Through 
appeasement of Hitler, who had been financed and protected by the Round 
Table cligue, the world was being maneuvered into a war. The Insiders 
know that it is in a time of crisis during war or depression that 
dictatorial power can be concentrated in the federal government. It was 
essential to the Insiders that the "America last" international 
policies and welfare state deficit spending be continued. However, 
there was considerable doubt as to whether the American public would 
accept an unprecedented third term for FDR. Therefore, it was necessary 
to take control of the Republican party away from the real Republicans 
and make sure that the 1940 Presidential candidate was a man acceptable 
to the Insiders. The Insiders found their man in Wendell Willkie. 

The man behind Wendell Willkie was the late Russell Davenport, a 
Democrat who belonged to such world-statepromoting outfits as the World 
Citizenship Council, Atlantic Union Committee, and Federal Union, and 
served on the council of advisors of Student Federalists, which later 
merged with United World Federalists. Davenport was associated with 
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and was later a founder of 
Republican Advance, the ADA of the Republican Party. s Davenport was one 
of the founders of Fortune magazine for the late Henry Luce (CFR) . A 

Leftist from the beginning, he felt his ideas could be sold to 
businessmen through this slick magazine. 6 After the 1940 election 
Davenport set down his philosophy in Fortune. His article, "USA: The 
Permanent Revolution, " was widely syndicated 

in the press as "the American credo." It was a clever attempt to sell 
the idea that American capitalism had lost its fight and that ours was 
now a "mixed economy" - half socialist and half free. To Davenport this 
represented a great "social achievement." Boiled down, his argument was 
that America can prevail over Russia only if it borrows many of 
Russia's ideas and applies them to America. Davenport applauded the 
fact that "every year more businessmen see the light and some few of 
them become missionaries [for the new concept of capitalism] . The 
result is that American business is erecting a social structure that 
many a state planner would envy. A true industrial democracy is 
emerging." ("Industrial democracy" is a code phrase for socialism among 
Marxists.) Much of what we know of the Insiders' maneuvering of Willkie 
into the Republican nomination comes from the autobiography of 
Davenport's wife, published in 1967. Marcia Davenport tells us that her 
husband was holding sessions of a discussion group known as the 
"Fortune Round Table" (was the choice of words a coincidence?), whose 
participants were chosen for their "eminence" in their chosen fields. 
The round table group included "leading industrialists, bankers, 
financiers, scholars, labor union leaders, sociologists, economists and 
technical specialists." Mrs. Davenport writes: "Russell came home from 
his Roundtable meeting and walked into the house saying, 'I've met the 
man who ought to be the next President of the United States.' " His 
name was Wendell Willkie.' In describing Willkie, Marcia Davenport 
says : 

Some people called him [Willkie] the advocate of free enterprise; 
some, the spokesman of big business against the government. These were 
mostly mistaken summations of Wendell Willkie. He was an old-fashioned, 
hell-raising, hard-wrangling liberal .... He was a Democrat, a man 
of the people .... 8 

Willkie was in fact a registered Democrat who only five years 
earlier had been elected by Tammany Hall to the New 

York County Democratic Committee . 9 As a student at Indiana University 
he had been a member of the Socialist Club. 10 Willkie, the high- 
salaried head of a large utility company, had never done anything in or 
for the Republican party and was completely unknown outside his own 
limited but highly influential circles. What apparently sold the 
Establishment Insiders on Willkie was, as Mrs. Davenport puts it, that 
he was "outspoken in opposition to what was then a classic isolationist 
position in the Republican party."" Mrs. Davenport claims that the 
Willkie for President idea occurred to a number of individuals 
simultaneously, including "Harry [Henry ] Luce and other members of 
Time, Inc., who met him in our house." 12 According to Mrs. Davenport, 
the leadership from the financial community was "headed by Thomas W. 
Lamont . " She adds : 

Willkie did not just happen to the Republican party .... 
Several times each week we had people to dinner, sometimes by careful 
plan, when it best served the purpose to enclose the occasion in the 
form of an agreeable social meeting . . . .13 

The Establishment worked hard to sell Willkie to the American 
public through a gigantic publicity spree, which columnist George 
Sokolsky called "the advertising agent's holiday." Through their 
financial and other contacts throughout the communications media, the 
Insiders made it appear that there was spontaneous public interest in 
Wendell Willkie. Willkie was catapulted into the political arena by an 
article in the Saturday Evening Post, which was followed by articles 
suggesting Willkie for the Republican nomination that suddenly 
blossomed in leading newspapers and magazines. His picture 
"spontaneously" appeared on the covers of Time and other popular 
magazines, and the unknown lawyer mysteriously appeared as an author in 
Sunday magazines. He was given prestige in business circles by a 
laudatory article in Fortune, and in popular circles by a feature 
article in Life (Life, Fortune, and Time were all Luce publications) . 

The Willkie boom was engineered by top advertising executives 
from Madison Avenue, who planted news articles in magazines and 
newspapers, stimulated petitions, chain letters, advertisements, 
telegrams, and fund raising, and started Willkie clubs and Willkie 
mailing committees. Seven weeks before the Republican convention, the 
Gallup Poll reported that Willkie was the favorite of only 3 per cent 
of Republican voters. 

As the convention approached, one big stumbling block remained 
for Willkie - Senator Robert A. Taft, the choice of party 
Conservatives. Fearing that perhaps they might not be able to put 
Willkie over after all, the Insiders decided to make an attempt to buy 
Taft. The week before the convention opened, Senator and Mrs. Taft were 
invited to a New York dinner party given by Ogden Reid (CFR) , publisher 
of the New York Herald Tribune, and Mrs. Reid. The details of the 
dinner party are set forth in One Man: Wendell Willkie, by C. Nelson 
Sparks. The major facts have been thoroughly corroborated by both 
Robert Taft and Wendell Willkie. 

Present at this dinner party were Thomas Lamont (CFR) , senior 
partner of J. P. Morgan & Company, and Mrs. Lamont; Lord Lothian of the 
Round Table, then Ambassador to the United States from Great Britain; 
Mr. and Mrs. John Pillsbury of the Minneapolis milling family; and Mr. 
and Mrs. Wendell Willkie. Following the dinner Lord Lothian, a member 
of the British Liberal Party who had accompanied socialist George 
Bernard Shaw in his loving pilgrimage to Moscow, was asked to make a 
few remarks. 14 The substance of his speech was that it was the duty of 
the United States to go all out at once to aid Britain in the war. This 
was in June 1940, a year and a half before Pearl Harbor. Lamont was 
then called on, and expressed himself as being wholly in accord with 
Lord Lothian. Willkie was called on next. He enthusiastically endorsed 
everything that Lord Lothian and Lamont had said, 

maintaining that it was our duty to go to war at once to aid England. 
By this time, the plot was pretty clear to Taft. He realized that he 
had been invited to the Reid dinner for the purpose of ascertaining 
whether he was willing to pay the price to get the support of the 
Insiders for the Republican nomination - namely, an all-out war 
declaration that would satisfy the New York banking interests and the 
British Ambassador. Taft knew that if he endorsed the remarks of 
Lothian, Lamont, and Willkie, he would automatically become acceptable 
to the financial interests and thereby greatly improve his chances of 
winning the nomination. Taft, however, was a man of rare principle, and 
he declined this opportunity to win the support of the Insiders. When 
called on, he simply observed that he could add nothing to his remarks 
in the Senate, where he had declared that Americans did not want to go 

to war to beat a totalitarian system in Europe if they were to get 
socialism here when it was all over. A few days later, the New York 
Herald Tribune announced its unequivocal support for Willkie, with a 
three-column appeal to the delegates on the front page calling Willkie 
"Heaven's gift to the nation in its time of crisis." 

When the Republican national convention convened in Philadelphia, 
Willkie had only 105 delegates. Even the Gallup (CFR) Poll reported 
that Willkie was the favorite of a mere 17 per cent of Republicans. 
Only the politically naive could believe that hundreds of delegates 
suddenly went overboard for Willkie out of sheer fascination with "the 
barefoot boy from Wall Street." Some Republicans saw through the 
publicity blitz, and forty Republican Congressmen called for a "real 
Republican." Congressman Usher Burdick declared: 

I believe I am serving the best interests of the Republican party 
by protesting in advance and exposing the machinations and attempts of 
J. P. Morgan and other New York utility bankers in forcing Wendell 
Willkie on the Republican Party .... There is nothing to the Willkie 
boom for president except the artifical 

public opinion being created by newspapers, magazines and the radio. 
The reason back of all this is money. Money is being spent by someone 
and lots of it. This is a good time to find out whether the American 
people are to be let alone in the selection of a Republican candidate 
for the Presidency, or whether the "special interests" of this country 
are powerful enough to dictate to the American people, i s 

At the convention the galleries were packed with noisy Willkie 
supporters who chanted "We Want Willkie" hour upon hour .in an attempt 
to stampede the convention and give the erroneous impression that the 
Willkie bandwagon came from the grass roots. Lamont money could buy 
anything . 

Professionals around the country hired girls to get on the 
telephone and stimulate a deluge of pro-Willkie telegrams to the 
delegates. Not all the telegrams were signed. Also, the Insiders sought 
to influence delegates by having the mortgage holders and bankers to 
whom they owed money call them on behalf of Willkie. '6 The chairman of 
one delegation stated that he was offered $19,000 for the expenses of 
his delegation if he would deliver his state's votes for Willkie. 17 And 
so one of the great show biz successes of the Twentieth Century was 
staged in Philadelphia, as the Insiders succeeded in heading off Taft 
and making sure that New Deal foreign and domestic policies with their 
deficit spending and resulting millions in interest to bankers were 
secure . 

In her autobiography Marcia Davenport describes the Willkie 
campaign : 

The campaign began. It was one thing for a small group of 
inspired men to incite the American people to demand the nomination of 
Wendell Willkie and to ram him down the throats of the Republican 
party. It was quite another thing to mount a presidential campaign on 
the shoulders and through the resources of that party .... 
. . . I marvel today at the audacity of a handful of amateurs 
[sic] who drove in the nomination of Willkie over the heads of the 
whole Republican old guard. 18 

Willkie 's campaign of glorifying the New Deal both at home and 
abroad led, of course, to a staggering defeat. In spite of all their 

efforts to nominate him, the Establishment Insiders couldn't have cared 
less that Willkie lost. Their objective had been to ensure that the 
voters were not given a choice, to wrap their tentacles around the 
Republican party, and to deal a death blow to the two-party system. 

In assessing the Willkie movement Mrs. Davenport calls Willkie 's 
defeat : 

. . . the most constructive defeat a candidate ever met .... 
It changed the direction of the Republican policy during the war and in 
the harried years of non-peace afterwards .... No Republican since 
has taken a leading place in American and world affairs who did not 
follow the path that [liberal Democrat] Willkie blazed. And when the 
old guard, after twenty-four years of battling his ghost and his echo, 
nominated one of their own for the presidency, Goldwater went down to 
the most crushing defeat in presidential campaign history. 19 

Mrs. Davenport provides us with this significant anecdote about 
the end of the Willkie campaign: 

The night after the 1940 election Russell and I were alone at 
home .... The doorbell rang, about eleven o'clock. I went to the 
door - to Harry Hopkins [Roosevelt's aide] . I had never met him though 
Russell had more times than he admitted. Hopkins was like a walking 
corpse, bone-pale, emaciated, bent and stooped with weakness. He 
shuffled into the drawing room with me, saying to Russell, "Tell me 
about it. Tell me how you did it." [Emphasis added. ] Zo 

Following his election defeat Willkie continued to serve the 
Insiders. During the war years few pro-Communist propaganda moves were 
more successful than Willkie 's 
round-the-world trip. As columnist George N. Crocker describes it: 

The flighty Wendell Willkie, after losing in his try for the 
presidency in 1940, "suddenly got religion" and became an ebullient 
emissary for Roosevelt, traveling to London, Moscow and Chungking in an 
Army Transport plane, emotionally overcome by his precipitate arrival 
in the upper regions of international fame. His much publicized slogan 
"One World" served well to cover up the real state of affairs .... 
Whether other Republican leaders, such as Hoover and Taft, and 
dissident Democrats such as former Secretary of War Harry H. Woodring, 
looked upon these antics of Wendell Willkie as those of an 
opportunistic hypocrite or an impressionable dupe we know not. They 
themselves had no hallucinations about a "grand coalition of peoples, 
fighting a common war of liberation . "21 

A companion of Willkie on his trip and the ghostwriter of his 
book, One World (the title is very significant ), 22 was Communist party 
member Joseph Fels Barnes (CFR) , a relative of the Rothschild banking 
dynasty. Later Barnes was to ghostwrite Dwight D. Eisenhower's book, 
Crusade In Europe. 

In 1944, with a war going on, the Insiders had little to fear 
from the Republicans. However, they took no chances. Polls taken by CFR 
member George Gallup showed that the GOP could not win unless -it 
continued the New Deal foreign policy and named candidates who would 
appeal to left-leaning Democrats. The Gallup Poll also "announced" that 
68 per cent of Republican voters were for Thomas E. Dewey (CFR), and 
that he was the only Republican with a chance to win. Dewey carried on 

a weak campaign and refused to mention, because of the personal request 
of George C. Marshall, the Republicans' best issue: how Roosevelt had 
invited and encouraged the Pearl Harbor attack. Dewey knew that FDR had 
refused to negotiate with the pro-American government of Prince Konoye 

Japan, and had given its successor an ultimatum that meant war. Dewey 
knew that we had broken the top Japanese code before Pearl Harbor, and 
also was aware that FDR, his Secretaries of War and Navy, and Chief of 
Staff George C. Marshall, had had advance warnings of the Japanese 
attack. He knew that Pearl Harbor was a "set-up" and a disaster for 
which the Commander-in-Chief should have been held personally 
responsible . 23 The American people had the right to know too, but they 
never found out. Insiders don't tattle - with the possible exception of 
Dr. Carroll Quigley, if he really is one. 

In 1948, despite the Republican party tradition against 
nominating a loser, the Insiders successfully trotted the lackluster 
Dewey back on stage once again, complete with CFR Gallup Polls showing 
that he was a sure thing. To insure the nomination, the Deweyites spent 
money and made deals and promises that Taft would never have made. 
After the convention one delegate ran for the train and died of a heart 
attack on it. He had $1500 in fresh money on him, and the other 
delegates claimed it should be divided among them. 24 

One of the deals made by the Dewey managers was with Congressman 
Charles Halleck, who was promised the Vice Presidential nomination if 
he could deliver the Indiana delegation to Dewey; but the Insiders did 
not trust Halleck. Their house organ, the New York Times, declared: 

Surely not Mr. Halleck! Mr. Halleck would bring into the 

campaign the perfect record of a Republican isolationist. Mr. 

Halleck voted against Selective Service in the summer of 

1940 . . . .Mr. Halleck voted against Lend-Lease .... He voted 

against the British loan, he voted against the Hall Reciprocal 

Trade program in 1940 .... He led the plan to cut appropriations 

under the Marshall plan .... 

Here's a good summary of the kind of candidate the Insiders will 
not tolerate. They will not allow a candidate on 

the ticket - even in second place - unless he has a foreign policy 
acceptable to the New York financiers and banking interests who profit 
so greatly from the New Deal internationalist foreign policy. 

Earl Warren of California was chosen as the Vice Presidential 
nominee. Warren had begun his political career as a hard-fighting 
enforcer of anti-Communist and anti-crime laws. However, following the 
mysterious and never-solved murder of his father, Earl Warren had 
suddenly changed, almost as if he had been blackmailed, and went on to 
establish his notorious pro-Communist record. 25 

Dewey and Warren did not campaign on the major issue of that 
year, which was Communist infiltration in government. The exposure of 
Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and other Communists in high government 
positions had given Republicans their best issue - but Dewey and Warren 
did not discuss it. 

Dewey went into the '48 election with everything in his favor. He 
was faced not by the invincible Roosevelt, but by a highly vincible 
Harry Truman. The Democrats had been in office for four long and 
troublesome terms. Truman was not a popular President, and the 
Democratic party was split three ways, with Henry Wallace siphoning off 

far-Left voters and with the Dixiecrats in the South. The country was 
ripe for a change. All the pre-election polls showed Dewey far out in 
front, but, accepting in almost every particular the liberal analysis 
of how to run a campaign, he proceeded to blow it. Dewey's campaign was 
a textbook study of liberal Republican strategy. Its ideological bias 
leaned heavily toward Liberalism - a fact Dewey underlined by virtually 
disowning the Republican Party in Congress and steering particularly 
clear of arch-rival Robert Taft. 

Truman pitched his campaign against the Republican 80th Congress. 
Dewey made his fatal mistake when he did not defend it. The Republican 
80th Congress, under the leader- 
ship of Taft, had made the greatest record of any Congress in the 
Twentieth Century. For the first time since the start of the New Deal, 
it reduced taxes, balanced the budget, and reduced the national debt. 
It had exposed numerous Communists who had infiltrated the New Deal. It 
had enacted the Taft-Hartley law over Truman's veto. It had authorized 
the Hoover Commission to reorganize the government, and had passed the 
22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting the President to two 
terms . 

Dewey assumed that the Midwestern heartland of the party was 
secure and that his job was to corral Liberal votes in the East. He 
also assumed that the key to Republican success was in the big cities - 
another theorem presently favored by the Liberal GOP. 

What happened? Dewey accomplished the major strategic objectives 
he thought were necessary to his election. He carried supposedly 
decisive New York State and triumphed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 
running strongly in the major metropolitan centers. Yet he lost the 
election because he failed to carry the Republican base he thought he 
could take for granted. It was the crowning irony of the New York-big 
city strategy that the 1948 election was lost through defection of the 
Midwestern farm vote. Dewey lost the key Midwestern states of Ohio, 
Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin by an aggregate of less than 100,000 
votes, and thereby lost the election. Dewey's campaign was so Liberal 
that Midwesterners found Truman more to their liking. Pollster Samuel 
Lubell observed: 

Truman rather than Dewey seemed the conservative candidate to 
many voters .... The harshest fact about the 1948 voting from the 
Republican viewpoint was how many ordinarily conservative persons 
feared a Republican victory .... 

The net significance of the Dewey debacle was that it 
demonstrated the political liabilities of being neither fish nor 

fowl, 2 6 1 "1 

ship of Taft, had made the greatest record of any Congress in the 
Twentieth Century. For the first time since the start of the New Deal, 
it reduced taxes, balanced the budget, and reduced the national debt. 
It had exposed numerous Communists who had infiltrated the New Deal. It 
had enacted the Taft-Hartley law over Truman's veto. It had authorized 
the Hoover Commission to reorganize the government, and had passed the 
22nd Amendment to the Constitution, limiting the President to two 
terms . 

Dewey assumed that the Midwestern heartland of the party was 
secure and that his job was to corral Liberal votes in the East. He 
also assumed that the key to Republican success was in the big cities - 
another theorem presently favored by the Liberal GOP. 

What happened? Dewey accomplished the major strategic objectives 
he thought were necessary to his election. He carried supposedly 
decisive New York State and triumphed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 
running strongly in the major metropolitan centers. Yet he lost the 
election because he failed to carry the Republican base he thought he 
could take for granted. It was the crowning irony of the New York-big 
city strategy that the 1948 election was lost through defection of the 
Midwestern farm vote. Dewey lost the key Midwestern states of Ohio, 
Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin by an aggregate of less than 100,000 
votes, and thereby lost the election. Dewey's campaign was so Liberal 
that Midwesterners found Truman more to their liking. Pollster Samuel 
Lubell observed: 

Truman rather than Dewey seemed the conservative candidate to 
many voters .... The harshest fact about the 1948 voting from the 
Republican viewpoint was how many ordinarily conservative persons 
feared a Republican victory .... 

The net significance of the Dewey debacle was that it 
demonstrated the political liabilities of being neither fish nor fowl, 
z 6 

The accuracy of this comment is suggested by the fact that Dewey 
got fewer votes in 1948 than he did in 1944. Some 682,000 voters in the 
election did not bother to mark a ballot for either Presidential 
candidate, and in sixteen states the vote for Congressional candidates 
was larger than that for Presidential aspirants. Dewey himself 
observed, in the aftermath of the election, that it "looks as though 
two or three million Republicans stayed home. "27 It is also possible 
that voters felt there was no apparent difference between the 
candidates to make it desirable to vote for the Republican. Dewey was 
doubtless personally humiliated, but the Insiders had plenty of their 
men around the hapless Harry Truman, a small-time outsider who had been 
hoisted into national politics by the notorious Pendergast machine of 
Kansas City. Following the '48 election Democrats bragged about the 
trick they had pulled. Jack Redding, former publicity director of the 
Democratic National Committee, in his book, Inside the Democratic 
Party, quoted Democratic National Chairman Robert Hannegan as saying in 
a Democratic strategy huddle: 

Actually, if the Republicans were smart, they'd run Taft. He'd 
make a better candidate and would probably be harder for us to beat 
because he would fight harder. Don't make the mistake of underrating 
Taft, .... The fact is Taft is a fighter and will make a terrific 
fight for what he represents. Dewey will be "me-too" all over again . . 
. . Hit Taft hard and often; maybe we can stop him from getting the 
nomination and at the same time embarrass Dewey, z 8 

Harold Ickes put it more bluntly. He said:. "With the bases 
loaded, the Republicans sent to the plate their bat boy. They could 
have sent their Babe Ruth - Bob Taft. "29 Dewey had indeed snatched 
defeat from the jaws of victory for the Republicans, but either way it 
was a victory for the Insiders, who cared not a whit whether their man 
Dewey or the 
perfectly acceptable substitute, Harry Truman, sat in the White House. 

The Insiders realized that 1952 would be a turning-point year in 
American history. It was almost a foregone conclusion that after thirty 
years of Democrat rule the nation was gasping for a change. The Truman 
scandals, the Korean War, Communist infiltration in government, plus 

the fact that for the first time in twenty years the GOP did not face 
an incumbent President, all combined to make the Republican 
Presidential nomination a valuable prize. Although the Insiders had 
been selecting Republican candidates since 1936, their hold on the 
Republican Party for 1952 looked tenuous. The Taft Conservative forces 
had been gaining in strength and were preparing to make an all-out 
assault on the Presidency. But the Insiders were determined to make the 
two parties as much alike as Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. 

Colonel Edward M. House had established the Council on Foreign 
Relations to carry out Karl Marx's dictum: "Infiltrate both or all of 
the political organizations - eliminate all opposition and confuse the 
people." Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), which included numerous 
CFR members in its membership, had served well as the Fabian Socialist 
movement within the Democratic party. Russell Davenport of Willkie 
campaign fame, himself a behind-thescenes wheelhorse in the ADA, was 
determined that the GOP should have its own ADA, which would serve as a 
leftwing Trojan horse within the Republican party. The ADA-type 
organization for the GOP was called Republican Advance; it was 
bankrolled by Nelson Rockefeller (CFR) and Sidney Weinberg. 3° In 
hearings held before the Select Committee on Lobbying Activities on 
July 7, 1950, former FDR Attorney General Francis Biddle gave the 
following testimony: 

"Mr. Brown: Have you [ADA] become more active in the 

Republican party recently, your organization? 

Mr. Biddle: No - we have not, except - well, in this sense. Our 
influence has been rather striking. I do not know if you have noted the 
organization of a similar movement in the Republican party - I don't 
think they have a name for it - led by Russell Davenport. 

Mr. Brown: You mean Republican Advance or something like that? 

Mr. Biddle: Something like that. I thought it might be called 
Republicans for Democratic Action, but that did not seem guite 
appropriate .... [Emphasis added.] 31 

Republican Advance had its beginnings in 1950. On the Fourth of 
July that year, twenty-one Republican Congressmen joined what they 
termed a "revolt" against the Taft wing of the party. They announced 
their support of the new Republican group calling itself "Advance, " 
which had been launched in semisecrecy the week prior to the 
announcement in Philadelphia. Advance hoped to unseat Senator Taft and 
to dilute the influence of Conservatives within the party, and of other 
Conservatives. The Advance statement was issued in opposition to the 
GOP statement of policy adopted in February 1950 by House and Senate 
Republicans and concurred in by the Republican National Committee. The 
statement said that the case was merely "liberty versus socialism." The 
"Statement of Policy" issued by Republican Advance announced the 
intention to have the GOP "play down" its campaign against socialism 
and Communism within the government. It would commit the party instead 
to a strong civil rights platform and a welfare state along Roosevelt- 
Truman lines . 

The Los Angeles Times of July 14, 1950, reported that twenty-one 
Republican Congressmen endorsed the principle that the Republican Party 
must "place strong emphasis on civil and social rights as a keystone 
for national unity." The principal ideological paragraph in Advance's 
manifesto asserted: 
The real issue against the Democrats does not lie with the 

goals .... The real issue . . . lies with the means of achieving 
these goals .... The Republicans have failed to sell themselves by 
attacking the product of the Democrats. They have not presented 
satisfactory alternatives to the Democratic projects they have 
attacked. [Emphasis added.] 

Prior to the formation of Republican Advance the main thrust of 
the Republican Party was exposing Communism and fighting socialism. 
These two aspects were dropped in favor of fighting for civil rights, 
social legislation, and internationalism. 

Although at the time the Republican Advance statement was brushed 
off by the Republican National Committee, which promised to keep up a 
hot war against the Marxists, for the first time the Left was organized 
within Republican Congressional ranks. The turning-point had been 
passed: the Republican Party had made a decisive turn to the Left. 

Among the twenty-one Congressmen on the original list of 
Congressional sponsors of Republican Advance were John Davis Lodge 
(CFR; brother of Henry Cabot Lodge, CFR) , Clifford Case (CFR) , 
Christian Herter (CFR) , Jacob Javits (CFR) , Kenneth Keating, Thruston 
Morton, Hugh Scott, and Richard M. Nixon (CFR) . 

Many of the twenty-one Congressmen were merely "fronts" for the 
CFR leaders of Advance, such as Thomas E. Dewey and John Foster Dulles. 
Among other political figures involved were Herbert Brownell, who 
became Attorney General in the Eisenhower cabinet, Senator Henry Cabot 
Lodge (CFR), Senator Ralph Flanders, and Sherman Adams. 32 Also 
supporting Advance was the nation's most influential publisher, Henry 
Luce (CFR) of Time, Life and Fortune. 

Advance was soon to emerge from its cocoon and become Citizens 
for Eisenhower. Much of the background of the Citizens for Eisenhower 
movement is provided for us by an 

article by Paul Hoffman (CFR) in Colliers magazine of October 26, 1956, 
entitled "How Eisenhower Saved the Republican Party." This article can 
be read in any major library and is one of the most illuminating 
documents by or about the Insiders ever made public. Hoffman and his 
wife, Leftwing Democrat Anna Rosenberg, have been key figures in the 
capture of the GOP by the Left. Hoffman was described by U.S. News & 
World Report of December 30, 1955, as "an influential, though 
unofficial, Presidential advisor," and was a key man in the nomination 
and election of Eisenhower. Before he became involved in politics, 
Hoffman's chief claim to fame was that he had piloted the Studebaker- 
Packard Corporation over the rapids of financial collapse. His 
gualif ications for restructuring the Republican party included his 
career as a "professional spendthrift with other people's money" 
through foreign aid, and his advocacy of the thesis that American 
foreign aid should be not temporary but permanent; he had also 
advocated giving cabinet rank to the agency that dispensed the money. 33 
In December 1948, months after General Marshall himself had abandoned 
any such idea, Hoffman was still calling for a coalition government 
with the Communists in China. 34 He has served as a trustee of the 
Committee for Economic Development (CED), the major propaganda arm of 
the Council on Foreign Relations, and of the Ford Foundation, a horn of 
plenty for Leftwingers and Leftwing projects on every continent; he was 
also a trustee of the CFR-spawned Institute of Pacific Relations, 
called by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee an "instrument of 
Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence." Hoffman has 
been a member of such oneworld outfits as the UN Association of the 
United States, the American Committee on United Europe, and Americans 

United for World Government. Now involved with the United Nations 
Special Fund, Hoffman, a close friend of 

the late publishing magnate Henry Luce, has been responsible for 
channeling money to Castro's Cuba and other Communist nations. Former 
Ambassador Spruille Braden once remarked: 

The kindest thing I can say about Hoffman is that he is a damn 
fool. I would be sorry to think he knew that this whole business of 
foreign aid has been a fulfillment of Soviet policy. But if he doesn't 
know it he is a damn fool. Lenin and Stalin both said it was the 
purpose of Soviet Communism to get the developed countries to send 
financial help to the underdeveloped countries. 3s 

Hoffman has been one of the financiers of the National Committee 
for an Effective Congress, a group which is somewhat to the left of the 
ADA. 3 6 

Hoffman, a top Insider himself, is married to Anna Rosenberg. In 
the early 1950 's Mrs. Rosenberg, who was later to be the brains behind 
Nelson Rockefeller's political career, was working in the Defense 
Department, picking key personnel for the entire defense establishment. 
Despite the fact that the Senate confirmed her appointment, Mrs. 
Rosenberg is seriously suspect. Nobody wants to discuss or expose her 
for fear of being called anti-Semitic, but criticism of Mrs. 
Rosenberg's background has nothing to do with her religion, only with 
her politics. All of her adult life she has been on the Marxist side of 
the world revolution. Born in Hungary, she worked closely for many 
years with the revolutionary Marxist, Sidney Hillman. For years she 
wrote for Red organs, lectured to Red groups, and promoted Red 
activities. The December 8, 1942 issue of the official Communist 
publication, New Masses, contains an article by her. The magazine 
introduced her as "New York Regional Director, War Manpower 
Commission, " the title which the future Assistant Secretary of Defense 
held under President Roosevelt at that time. That issue of New Masses 
showed a 

drawing of the author in connection with the article. Placing the 
drawing beside a photograph of Mrs. Anna Rosenberg shows that it was 
not a case of mistaken identity, as she claimed. 

Ralph DeSola, a former Communist, testified under oath that he 
had attended meetings of the Communist John Reed Club with Mrs. 
Rosenberg in the mid-1930 's, and that she was a member of the Communist 
Party. Although DeSola identified her by sight as the same Anna 
Rosenberg whom he knew to be a Communist, Mrs. Rosenberg steadfastly 
maintained that it was a case of mistaken identity. DeSola's testimony 
could not be refuted, but neither could it be corroborated. It was 
brought out that there were forty Anna Rosenbergs in New York City at 
that time, and that six had signed Communist petitions. Another Anna 
Rosenberg, who had since moved to California, claimed that she had been 
a member of the John Reed Club during the '30's, so that DeSola's 
testimony was clouded. 

However, Mrs. Rosenberg did contradict her own testimony. She 
testified, "I re-read the Dies Committee report and the Anna Rosenberg 
[of the John Reed Club] was a writer. I am not a writer .... I have 
never written anything." But a little later, on November 29, 1950, Mrs. 
Rosenberg told the same Senate Committee, "I have a full list of the 
organizations to which I have belonged, and of everything I have 
written . . . . " (Emphasis added.) Mrs. Rosenberg then submitted a 
long list of articles she had written, thus showing that she had 

testified falsely under oath in stating that she had "never written 
anything." It is significant, too, that she failed to list the article 
she had written for the Communist New Masses of Decenjber 8, 1942. She 
admitted she "wrote for New School for Social Research" and "gave 
courses on collective bargaining at New School for Social Research, 
1940." The New School for Social Research, as various official 
investigations show, is a hotbed of Marxists of all 

varieties. General Eisenhower was an old friend of Mrs. Rosenberg and 
knew her favorably long before her patron, George C. Marshall, took her 
into the Defense Department as a manpower expert. 37 

The opposition to her Defense Department appointment was 
violently and vehemently attacked by official Communist organs and by 
the multitude of Communist fronts and Insider-controlled publications 
throughout the country. By the vehemence of their defense of Mrs. 
Rosenberg, Hoffman's wife, the Communists and Insiders showed that she 
was of special importance in their plans. 

In the Colliers article, "How Ike Saved the Republican Party, " 
Hoffman described meeting Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan to 
discuss blocking the nomination of Taft in 1952. Vandenberg, who wanted 
to nominate Eisenhower, explained the "guandary" faced by the 
Republican Party (as related by Hoffman) : 

Half the Republican leadership, many of them utterly sincere men, 
could not, it seemed, grasp the overriding fact that we lived in a very 
dangerous world .... Half our party - the isolationist, fortress- 
America half - seemed egually unable to grasp the fact that America has 
changed at home too; that labor unions were here to stay; that 
government had a partner's role to play in preserving free enterprise; 
that ordinary people needed some insurance against the dangers that go 
with our free system of economic abundance. 

There was another half of our Republican party too, a modern- 
liberal half, whose work and philosophy was demonstrated in the 
achievements of such great state governors as Sherman Adams, Tom Dewey 
and Earl Warren. This half had come to grips with the problems of the 
20th Century and had worked out a program, both at home and abroad, 
that seemed to be better than anything the Democrats could offer. 
[Emphasis added.] 38 

Hoffman made several trips to Europe to induce Eisenhower to run. 
He said in Colliers: 

I returned to Paris again in November of 1951. That week we spoke 
several times - away from~his offices at SHAPE where he could not let 
politics enter .... Many men, far more important, had been urging 
him to run .... When I returned to New York, I felt I could 
confidently spread the word: "We have a candidate." 39 

Hoffman took a "four months' leave of absence" from the Ford 
Foundation "to devote full time to the campaign." 

The Citizens for Eisenhower movement, according to Hoffman, was: 

. . . vitally important both in the strategy of the campaign and 
in Eisenhower's political education. Strategically it was the 
brainchild of Cabot Lodge [CFR] , who saw it as an instrument to bring 
pressure to bear on the Old Guard regulars who controlled the party's 
machinery, a lever to exercise the power of millions of unorganized and 
independent and Democrat votes where this power could count. 40 

The campaign then became one to convince Democrats and 
independents that the Republicans could out-Liberal the Democrats. 

The first man who publicly attempted to induce Eisenhower to run 
for President was Leonard Finder, one of the founders of the Leftwing 
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) , later headed by Dore Schary of the United 
World Federalists. Finder, who became a "Republican" only in 1952, had 
wanted Ike to run as a Democrat in 1948. In an article for Colliers of 
November 3, 1951, titled "Why Ike Will Run," Finder confirmed the fact 
that he initiated the "Ike for President" movement, and the General 
wrote him a letter dated January 22, 1948, when he decided not to risk 
a try for the Presidency that year. In the Colliers article Finder 
named as Eisenhower supporters such ultra-Leftists as Paul Douglas, 
Wayne Morse, David Dubinsky, Adolph Berle, James Roosevelt, Claude 
"Red" Pepper, Chester Bowles, Helen 

Gahagan Douglas, Jake Arvey, and Adlai Stevenson. Finder said that, in 
1948, "most Democrats were elated with the news that he had not acted 
with definite adverseness. But something happened within those few 
weeks to alter his attitude and make him hold adamant against the 
nomination . " 

Finder went on to state, "On every appropriate occasion, General 
Eisenhower has reiterated that he has no party affiliations." Because 
Ike "believes in the two-party system, " Finder hinted that the General 
would decide to run as a Republican in 1952. Although he did not rule 
Eisenhower out as the Democratic candidate in 1952, Finder said that 
the public was feeling the Democrats had been in office too long. But, 
said Finder, "Do these considerations mean that the Democratic 
nomination is ruled out absolutely? Not at all. At least one situation 
exists, in my opinion, that would make General Eisenhower accept the 
Democrat bid .... That condition would be the Republican nomination 
of Senator Taft . ..." In 1948, Ike had told Finder, "If the 
Republicans were to nominate a reactionary, you know what my answer 
would have to be." 

Finder said of Ike's liberal politics that, while they "might not 
make as much speed as would satisfy impatient extreme liberals or 
radicals, it would mean progress forward at an appreciable rate." Even 
if the ADL for which Mr. Finder spoke were not an extreme Left 
organization, one could hardly fail to catch the full implication of 
that statement. Eisenhower would follow the same course as the extreme 
"liberals or radicals," though less rapidly. Finder stated: 

The election of General Eisenhower on the Republican ticket 

would strengthen democracy on all sides. At present, the 

Democratic party claims to be the only haven for Americans 

who believe more in growing with the future than in retaining 

the status quo. The Republican party is under the influence of 

its most conservative members. With General Eisenhower 

leading the Republicans, that party too would become liberalized. 41 

A more blatant call for the takeover of the Republican party by 
non-Republicans of the Left would be difficult to imagine. 

The fact that it was the extreme Left wing of the Democratic 
party that wanted Eisenhower to run for the Presidency as a Democrat in 
1948 should have given Republicans a clue to Ike's true beliefs. Among 
those supporting an Eisenhower candidacy were Adlai Stevenson, Eleanor 
Roosevelt, and Walter Reuther of the ADA. In hearings held on January 
7, 1950 before the Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, the 
following testimony was given: 

Chairman: Did the national organization [ADA] actually take a 
position for Eisenhower for President? 

Mr. Loeb: For Eisenhower or Justice [William 0.] Douglas .... 
The position taken at the Board meeting in Pittsburgh in April 1948, 
was for Eisenhower or Douglas. 42 

In his book, Crusade in Europe, Ike revealed that Harry Truman 
had offered to support him for the presidency in 1948. Eisenhower's 
chief ghostwriter for Crusade in Europe was Joseph Fels Barnes, who had 
written One World for Willkie. Barnes, a CFR member, had shortly before 
this time traveled to Russia with the General's brother Milton. Barnes, 
a relative of the Rothschild banking clan, has been independently 
identified as a Communist agent in sworn testimony, on their personal 
knowledge, by Whittaker- Chambers, Louis Budenz, General Alexander 
Barmine, Dr. Carl Wittfogel, and Hede Massing. 43 John Gunther, after 
visiting Eisenhower's headguarters in Paris, confirmed Barnes' role in 
the writing of Crusade in Europe. 44 

Another behind-the-scenes international banker-kingmaker 
who worked both sides of the political street was the late Bernard 
Baruch, who discussed his relationship with Eisenhower in his 
autobiography : 

The country was fortunate in the choice it was offered in 1952. 
Adlai Stevenson certainly is one of the outstanding men in public life 
today. During the campaign, both he and. General Eisenhower were kind 
enough to ask my views. I told them both that in my opinion the control 
of inflation, the strengthening of our defenses, and the securing of 
peace were the major goals. 

General Eisenhower and I became close friends after the war. I 
saw him frequently at Columbia University, as I had when he was Chief 
of Staff, and developed a warm affection and regard for him. One 
question which interested us both, and which we often discussed, was 
the relationship between the individual and his government - how to 
strike a balance between laissez-faire and paternalism. The discussions 
between us on this subject, while Eisenhower was president of Columbia, 
led him to initiate a study of the problem at the University. Out of 
such conversations I gained, an appreciation of his ability, and of his 
quick and open mind. 

I myself concluded that; apart from the advantages which might 
accrue from a change after so long a Democratic tenure, General 
Eisenhower could best provide the leadership which the attainment of 
these goals required. I also felt that he could bring unity to the 
country . 45 

Another backer of Eisenhower for the Democratic candidacy in 1948 
was Sidney Hillman, with the CIO. Hillman had been an active 
revolutionary in the Russian Revolution and was a lifelong promoter of 
Communist causes in America. In the Atlanta Journal of September 17, 
1951, labor columnist Victor Riesel gave details of Eisenhower's 
relations with Hillman. Riesel was present at the CIO convention when 
the leftwing union boosted Ike. He said: 

The first Eisenhower for President boom was sounded by union 
chiefs. Until now that story has never fully been told. It began back 
in 1945, when the man who drove into Germany as a 
conquering hero cabled Sidney Hillman to fly into the bombed 

out Reich .... 

Soon Eisenhower was invited to speak at the Atlantic City CIO 
convention in '46 - a great coup for the CIO, for Eisenhower was on the 
paths of glory and a much sought after man. 

In describing events at the convention Riesel says: 

That night two men were called in by aides of Mr. Hillman. I 
know. I was one of those [newsmen who were told] . . . that the 
CIO thought it would be a great thing for the nation if 
Eisenhower were nominated in '48 . . . . 

The reason Ike chose not to run as a Democrat in 1948 could have 
been the adverse publicity stemming from the fact that, while president 
of Columbia University, he had granted the Communist government of 
Poland a Chair of Polish studies at the school. Dr. Arthur P., Coleman, 
assistant professor of Polish at Columbia, who saw how Poles were being 
slaughtered by the Communist government, lost the fight to keep 
Eisenhower from accepting the Red Chair. The Chair was subsidized by a 
$25, 000-a-year grant from the Polish Communist government. 46 

As 1952 approached, the Insiders who had been grooming Ike 
switched him from potential Democratic candidacy to Republican 
candidacy, even though he shared none of the traditional GOP 
philosophy . 

Eisenhower was no champion of free enterprise, and showed that he 
had little if any knowledge of the workings of free economy when he 
gave his answer to the inflation problem to a group in 1947: "Inflation 
could easily be licked any time by the simple action on the part of the 
industrialists and other business leaders of the nation. They merely 
decide, by joint voluntary agreement, to forego all profits for a year 
- or two if necessary." 4' In his article on the CFR, "School for 
Statesmen, " Joseph Kraft guoted a Republican member 

of the Council as saying: "Whatever General Eisenhower knows about 
economics he learned at the study group meetings." Another participant 
at the same group recalls that: "Eisenhower came with a vague 
predilection in favor of building up Europe. When he left, European aid 
was a ruling conviction ." 4g It was the General's internationalism that 
endeared him to the Insiders. Thomas Dewey, writing in Look magazine of 
September 11, 1951, stated: "I am an internationalist. That's why I am 
for Eisenhower. Eisenhower is a Republican at heart - but more 
important than that, he is an internationalist. 1149 

Not only did Eisenhower turn out to be a Republican in 1952, but 
his campaign manager, Henry Cabot Lodge (CFR) , went along with the 
story and claimed that Ike had been a life-long Republican . s ° The New 
York Times of May 1, 1951, had written: 

One of the weaknesses of the Eisenhower drive is that the 
General has never declared whether he was a Republican or 
Democrat. Another is that no one can say, with certainty, that he 
would accept the nomination. He is being represented, however, 
as definitely opposed to the nomination by the Republicans of an 
"isolationist" candidate like Senator Robert A. Taft of 
Ohio .... 

Robert Sherwood in his book, Roosevelt and Hopkins, said that 
Eisenhower told him personally in London, in March 1944, "that his 
family had always been Kansas Republicans, but he himself had never 

voted in his life." 51 Harry Truman, with whom Eisenhower had been in 
very close contact, thought right up to the fall of 1951 that 
Eisenhower would unguestionably accept the Democrat nomination . 52 It 
was Wendell Willkie all over again. 

In a feature story in the New York Times on April 15, 1952, 
Warren Moscow, that paper's New York political reporter, wrote: 

There is some degree of similarity between the Willkie drive and 
the movement to nominate General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower. The 
same financial and publishing interests or their counterparts are 
behind the Eisenhower movement .... If they nominate General 
Eisenhower, it will be because the controlling minority in the 
convention believes it needs him to win, and because the Eisenhower 
forces will have whipped up, back home, sentiment approaching the 
hysteria of the Willkie drive. [Emphasis added.] 

The newsletter Human Events noted on July 9, 1952: "For months 
the big money from New York has been flowing into the Eisenhower 
movement's coffers .... Presidents of every big bank in New York 
save one are behind the General." The treasurer of the Citizens for 
Eisenhower movement was the ubiguitous Sidney Weinberg, an 
international banker with Goldman, Sachs, and an intimate of FDR, who 
had discovered during the Willkie campaign that he could support 
Republicans as well as Democrats. 

Writing in the April 9, 1952 Human Events, scholar Frank Chodorov 

Why is Big Business backing General Eisenhower for the Presidency 
. . . ? Things being as, they are in this country Big Business looks to 
Washington for its living; if the next head of the Washington 
establishment is a spender of proportions, Big Business may hope to 
live at the cocktail standard to which it has been accustomed by the 
New-Fair Deal. General Eisenhower is reported to have strong leanings 
toward the big spender role. 

The other serious contender for the Republican nomination, 
Senator Taft, is of doubtful value to Big Business ... he has shown a 
distaste for the policy called internationalism, which is a euphemism 
for profligacy, and he seems to be temperamentally unfit for the job of 
wasting other people's money. It is expected that Mr. Taft, if elected, 
would be inclined to pull the national purse strings tight .... 

Putting the individualistic Mr. Taft aside, Big Business could 
place its bets on any of the present entries in the race and be sure to 
come up with a winner; that is, with a President who would 
assure them of a steady intake of the taxpayers' dollars, via 
contracts, interest payments, loans, etc. 

The pre-convention campaign featured rough, tough in- 
fighting. Human Events of March 26, 1952, remarked: 

The Wall Street supporters of General Eisenhower were jubilant 
[about Taf t ' s withdrawal from New Jersey] . Such moneymen as George 
Whitney [CFRI, Clarence Dillon [CFRI, Harold Talbott, John Hay Whitney 
[CFR] , and Winthrop Aldrich [CFR] [all Big Bankers], who are 
supporting Eisenhower and masterminding his campaign, operate as 
business men do in ruthless competition, forgetting that the primary is 
a prelude to a General Election and that nothing should be done in the 
primaries which will have the effect of a cumulative Spite vote in the 
General Election. 

Human Events, which now no longer mentions the words 
"international bankers," commented strongly on January 23, 
1952, on their involvement in denying Taft the nomination: 

Specifically, we can report that pressure is now being applied 
(by these banking interests) on businessmen who favor Taft but have the 
misfortune to owe money to these Eastern bankers. We have, on 
investigation, spotted several cases in which businessmen (leaders in 
their trans-Appalachian communities) have received communications from 
their New York creditors, urging them to join pro-Eisenhower committees 
and to raise or contribute funds thereto. These debtors happen to favor 
Taft and/or MacArthur and are not happy about the communication. For, 
they want no trouble with the gentlemen who hold the notes. At this 
moment, we cannot as yet ascertain just whether or not the debtors will 
surrender their political independence. 

First of all, it is being eloguently argued that, on the plane of 
principle, Taft can be urged to make an issue of this. Bankers and 
financial interests which play ball with and profit from the Fair Deal 
(in contrast to those who engage in "straight" banking) are just as 
much a menace to the weal of the country as Socialists, Communists and 
corruption practitioners. These elements of high finance played a role, 
and a big one, in getting us into both World 
Wars. What they are up to now should be discussed in the public forum. 

Naturally Eisenhower had all the Insider news media going for 
him, including some newspapers, such as the New York Post, owned by 
Dorothy Schiff, granddaughter of Jacob Schiff, the financier of the 
Russian Revolution, and the Washington Post, owned by the late 
financier Phillip Graham (CFR) . The two Posts support a Republican 
every third blue moon. Even John Cowles ' (CFR) Minneapolis Star 
supported Ike; and in its March 19, 1952, issue, it revealed that 
Minnesota's leftwing Democratic farmer-labor voters were supporting 
Eisenhower too. Historian George Morgenstern commented in the October 
8, 1952, Human Events: 

Yet, sight unseen, and even in advance of any personal profession 
of party attachment, the General's candidacy was espoused by an 
unlikely set of New Deal newspapers and syndicated columnists, all 
declaring the sudden conviction that the nation's well-being demanded 
that the two-party system be preserved through a change of 
administrations . 

Although Eisenhower had the support of the Insiders' mass media, 
he did not have the support of anti-Communist General Douglas 
MacArthur. Columnist George Sokolsky wrote: "He [MacArthur] supports 
Taft; he opposes Eisenhower; . . . the international bankers can 
exercise no influence on General Mac Arthur." 53 

Standing in the way of the Insiders' attempts to steal away with 
the Republican party was Robert A. Taft. Historian George Morgenstern 
describes this man of impeccable principle as follows: 

Three times Mr. Taft picked his party off the floor following 
defeat and put it together again. Morally and intellectually he was its 
unchallenged leader, and in himself personified the values 
which the party was supposed to represent. Miss Dorothy Thompson was 
never more cogent than when, in expressing the outlook of Taf t ' s 

followers, she quoted a carpenter who urged her to support Taft, and 
described in his terms what those values were: 

"We are the people who pay our taxes even when we hate what the 
government does with them; who regard it as a disgrace to expect our 
fellow citizens to support us; who believe we should get what we earn 
but earn what we get; whose sons are the first to volunteer in 
America's wars and who expect if we get in them to win them; and who 
know, darn well nobody is ever going to protect America but Americans. 
We are the Vanishing Americans, pushed around by big business, big 
labor, big government and big military. And if we lose this election we 
are finished. Eisenhower won't win it for us even if he wins. He'll win 
it for another branch of the same people who are running the country 
now." 54 

In Taft's book, A Foreign Policy for America, he expressed this 
simple premise, which made him anathema to the Insiders: "The ultimate 
purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the 
people of the United States." This attitude had led people like Arthur 
Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, to say he was 
supporting Eisenhower and opposing Taft for the Presidential nomination 
"because it is so frightening at [sic] the thought of Mr. Taft." 

As the time for the Republican convention approached, Taft 
apparently had enough delegates to win the nomination on the first 
ballot, while Eisenhower was at least 150 delegates short. The Insiders 
were desperate and needed a gimmick to capture a few crucial delegates 
from Taft. The opportunity presented itself in Texas. They devised a 
scheme whereby they would ignore the legally elected Taft delegates. 
The ploy was to hold rump meetings to which they would invite Democrats 
who had no intention of voting for any Republican in the November 
election, and have this illegal body "elect" Eisenhower delegates, who 
would then try to unseat the Taft delegates at the convention. 

The Eisenhower managers ran advertisements in Texas newspapers, 
and mailed out vast quantities of postcards addressed to "Occupant, " 
which invited Democrats to come to Republican party meetings and "vote" 
for Eisenhower. These ads stated, "You are not pledged to support the 
nominee of the Republican party nor does it prohibit you from voting in 
the July Democratic primary nor does it prohibit you from voting for 
whomever you please in the November election. "55 Such a procedure was 
clearly contrary to Texas law. When Taft and his supporters protested 
this illegal action, one of the Insiders' hatchet men came up with a 
brainstorm - accuse Taft of stealing delegates! Of course the Insiders 
were trying to steal the Republican Party, but that fact was lost in a 
deluge of propaganda from anti-Taft newspapers who accused Taft of the 
"big steal." Masked bandits with guns paraded the streets of Chicago 
carrying placards reading "Taft Steals Votes." Henry Cabot Lodge (CFR) , 
Sherman Adams (CFR) , and the other Eisenhower managers were screaming 
"Dishonesty" and "Fraud!" to the media, which treated the charges as if 
they were true. Like 1940, it was great show biz. 

When the illegally elected Eisenhower delegates arrived at the 
Republican national convention in Chicago, the job was to get them 
officially seated in place of the Taft delegates, in order to take away 
Taft's narrow margin of victory. By high-pressure propaganda and 
hypocritical bleating about the moral issue, the Insiders brought about 
a change in the rules for seating delegates under which every previous 
convention had functioned. Although this rules change was contrary to 
common sense as well as to every principle of parliamentary procedure, 
it was called the "Fair Play Amendment." 56 

Once the rules were changed, the second battle at the '52 
convention was over the seating of the contested delegates. By 
promising Earl Warren the first appointment 

to the Supreme Court and Richard Nixon the Vice Presidency, the 
Insiders persuaded the California delegation without hearing any of the 
evidence - to vote to expel the regular Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas 
delegations and seat the Eisenhower delegates. 

When the convention opened, the Taft headguarters had signed 
pledges from 604 delegates, the narrow majority he needed out of 1203. 
Eisenhower had only 400 plus. But behind the scenes, wheeling and 
dealing by Insiders whittled away at Taf t ' s majority and cost him the 
margin of victory. The Taft headguarters received reports of delegates 
who were bodily put on the train for home, leaving their alternates to 
vote for Ike. Delegates were threatened with loss of their jobs and 
calling of their bank loans unless their vote was for Eisenhower. Money 
flowed in great guantities everywhere. The Chicago Tribune on July 1 I 
summed up the convention like this: 

While yelling, "Steal!", they stole. While piously condemning 
evil, they entered the bagnio with it. With holy airs, they prejudged 
the issues, and with piety - and a lot of patronage they cried 
corruption while corrupting their own small souls. It was a sickening 
spectacle . 

On Monday the cry was "Fair play." On Wednesday all pretense of 
fairness was forsaken. On Monday the old rules of 1948 were bad. On 
Wednesday the bad old rules and precedents of 1948 were cited by the 
same people, and now they were good. The rule of seating Delegates in 
1948, was lamentable on Monday. On Wednesday the precedent of -1948 was 
invoked to seat Delegates, so long as they were for Eisenhower. 

Without hearing any of the evidence the convention overruled the 
credentials committee, overruled the Republican National Committee, 
threw out the Taft delegations from Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana, -and 
seated Eisenhower delegates. Ike won on the first ballot. 
The big guestion in Chicago was not a Southern delegation 
"steal." It was the question of whether or not the GOP would become de 
facto an arm of a permanent Democratic Administration. Eisenhower 
forces had made great capital out of the image slogan, "Taft Can't 
Win." In retrospect it is quite clear Taft indeed could have won in 
1952, as he probably would have done in 1948. The issues and the time 
were not merely ripe for a Republican victory, but overripe. Even 
Liberal commentators like Lubell acknowledged that Taft could have 
harvested a victory over Stevenson as Eisenhower did, although no doubt 
by a smaller margin. There was, nevertheless, a grain of truth in the 
argument: Taft was simply a less merchandisable item than the returning 
war hero, Ike. The "Can't Win" slogan was, in part, a reflection of the 
new age of image politics, which the Insiders use so masterfully. The 
slogan itself was an example of image politics and was an exercise in 
self-fulfilling prophecy, a variation on the theme that has been 
developed by Liberal Republicans for use against Conservatives in every 
intra-party combat since 1940. 

In a memorandum written by Taft in late 1952, circulated 
privately among his close friends, and published in the December 2, 
1959 Human Events, giving reasons why he lost the nomination, Taft 

First, it was the power of the New York financial interests and a 
large number of businessmen subject to New York influence, who selected 
General Eisenhower as their candidate at least a year ago. There was a 
strong and substantial minority of Taft supporters among business 
leaders, but they were a minority, particularly in the East. Second, 
four-fifths of the influential newspapers in the country were opposed 
to me continuously and vociferously and many turned themselves into 
propaganda sheets for my opponent. 

Thus did the Insiders deal a possibly mortal blow to the two- 
party system in the United States, while denying the 

Presidency to one of the great men of American history and guaranteeing 
to themselves hundreds of billions of future taxpayers' dollars. 

Little Man In A Big Hurry 

The Nixon story begins almost as if it had been written by 
Horatio Alger. Reared in a hard-working Quaker family, Richard Milhous 
Nixon was early inspired by his father's commitment to overcoming 
economic hardship through diligent effort. As the former Vice President 
has said, "My dad was an individual - he'd go to his grave before he 
took government help. This attitude of his gave us pride." And no doubt 
it did. The schoolboy Nixon worked in the family's small grocery store 
in Whittier until nine or ten o'clock at night, and after 'it closed 
for the night would study until two or three in the morning. 

In Nixon's junior year at Whittier High School, in keeping with 
his Quaker philosophy of individual responsibility and personal 
dignity, young Nixon's father gave him complete charge of the vegetable 
counter in the family grocery store. Dick did the buying, driving to 
the Los Angeles public market before sunrise to haggle with the local 
produce growers and hurrying back to arrange his displays before he 
left for school. All the profit he could make was his, and all that he 
could save went into a college bank account. It was superb training for 
a boy . 

In describing Richard Nixon as boy and young man, his schoolmates 
employ two adjectives repeatedly: "determined" and "persistent." After 
that come "brilliant," "serious," "clever," "calculating," "reserved," 
"cold," "industrious," and "game." 


An excellent student who was willing to pay the price of long 
hours of study to achieve academic excellence, young Nixon also became 
entranced with debating. His high school debating coach, Mrs. Clifford 
Vincent, remembers that she used to feel "disturbed" at his superiority 
over his teammates., "He had this ability," she recalls, "to kind of 
slide round an argument instead of meeting it head on, and he could 
take any side of a debate."' 

Nixon has always prided himself on his skill with an audience and 
on the practiced urbanity and self-control that he patiently developed 
in those early years. His teenage skill at debating may have been honed 
by six weeks as a barker for a wheel of chance at the Slipper Gulch 
Rodeo in Prescott, Arizona. There "he learned the knack of drumming up 
customers and then letting them have it, " Ph illip Andrews wrote in 
This Man Nixon. "His booth, it is said, became the most popular one in 
the show . " 

While working his way through Whittier College, Richard Nixon 
majored in history and again covered himself with distinction as a 
debater; he also distinguished himself as an actor in school dramas. 
Dr. Albert Upton, who directed Nixon in one of the Whittier College 
plays, is still awed when he recalls how adept the young collegian was 
at producing tears. "It was beautifully done, those tears," he 
remembers, confessing to having "twinged" when he saw photos of Nixon 
weeping on Senator William Knowland's shoulder after the famous 
"Checkers" speech. Dr. Upton says he never dreamed that his former 
student would go into politics, but adds: "I wouldn't have been 
surprised if, after college, he had gone on to New York or Hollywood 
looking for a job as an actor. "2 Some cynics believe he did! 

According to Earl Mazo, his most friendly biographer, "Nixon 
classified himself a 'Liberal' in college, " but not a flaming liberal.' 

Like many law students of that period, his public heroes were Justices 
Brandeis, Cardozo and Hughes, 

then the Supreme Court's progressive minority. "3 At Duke Law School on 
a scholarship, he graduated third in his class. Stewart Alsop guotes a 
former classmate: "My impression was that Richard Nikon was not an 
exceptionally brilliant student. However, he was outstanding because of 
his ability and willingness to do prodigious amounts of work. He 
pursued his ambition to stand at the head of his class with an 
intensity that few people are capable of." 

The biggest excitement of his law school days came when he and 
two classmates became overeager to learn of their class standing at the 
end of the second year and, in the words of one of them, Bill Perdue, 
"broke into the dean's office during the summer to find out where they 
stood. "4 

Upon graduation, Nixon had his heart set on the "big apple" - New 
York. Although he graduated third in a class of twenty-six, none of the 
New York firms to which he applied showed any interest. Then he made 
application to the FBI, and accounts vary as to whether there was any 
response from that agency. In any case, Nixon returned to Whittier and 
entered law practice in his home town. After Pearl Harbor, Nixon hied 
himself to Washington looking for a job. According to Harvard's John 
Kenneth Galbraith (CFR) : 

. . . the Office of Price Administration, where I was in charge 
of price control, rescued him - and hired Mrs. Nixon too. The primary 
credit goes, I believe, to Thomas I. Emerson, later Professor of Law at 
Yale, a valiant supporter of Henry A. Wallace and by all odds the most 
radical member of this very liberal agency. But Leon Henderson, who was 
in general command, gets bureaucratic credit and so do I. It hurts me 
that I never met Mr. Nixon in those days. I'm glad he's still under my 

Nixon found life as an OPA bureaucrat suffocating, and in the 
spring of 1942 he applied for a Navy commission, disregarding the fact 
that as a Quaker he could easily have claimed exemption from active 
service. In the famous 

"Checkers" speech of 1952, Mr. Nixon described his war record in these 
words : 

My service record was not a particularly unusual one. I went to 
the South Pacific. I guess I'm entitled to a couple of battle stars. I 
got a couple of letters of commendation, but I was just there 
when the bombs were falling, and then I returned. 

That isn't just how it was. In fact, Stewart Alsop noted in Nixon 
and Rockefeller that "... Nixon had a non-combat job far from the 
battle lines ..." For a few weeks, though, his naval unit was on the 
fringe of a combat area. But though he received a citation for 
efficiency in providing supplies something he had been doing 
effectively with cabbages and parsley since the age of seventeen - he 
was certainly entitled to no battle stars. 

During the long lonely nights in the backwaters of the Pacific 
war, Nixon did develop a talent that has doubtless stood him in good 
stead ever since. The young lieutenant became an expert - and very 
cagey - poker player. "He was the finest poker player I ever played 
against," fellow officer James Udall said. "I once saw him bluff a 
lieutenant commander out of $1,500 with a pair of deuces." 

Another officer, Lester Wroble, said he never saw Nixon lose at 
the game - five-card stud or draw, nothing wild. "He was consistent. He 
might win $40 or $ 50 a night," Wroble said. 

When Nixon entered politics by running for Congress from 
Whittier, his few thousand dollars of savings included money won at the 
poker table. b 

Richard Nixon's entrance into politics was one of those guirks of 
fate. In a feature story the Los Angeles Mirror once observed: "It's 
still a matter of some amusement to Dick Nixon how he was transported 
from a small-town lawyer into a legislator. He answered a newspaper 
ad."' In reality it wasn't, guite that simple. Republicans in Nixon's 
home district had for ten years been endeavoring unsuccessfully to 
unseat Democratic Congressman Jerry Voorhis. A candidatef inding 
"Committee of One Hundred" was formed to select an opponent to Vorrhis 
who had enough pizazz to defeat the veteran Congressman. The committee 
took its first step by sending to twenty-six newspapers in the district 
a publicity announcement describing its aims. What they wanted, it 
said, was a newcomer in politics with gualif ications that might make 
him a match for the incumbent. The committee promised that its 
endorsement and financial support would not obligate the candidate in 
any way. An old friend of the Nixon family, Herman Perry, head of the 
Bank of America's Whittier Branch, fired a telegram to Nixon, who was 
awaiting his discharge from the Navy in Washington. Nixon telephoned 
Perry and told the banker he was definitely interested. Nixon was flown 
home for a November 1, 1945 appearance before a screening committee at 
the William Penn Hotel in Whittier. He told the assembled men that 
there were two schools of thought about the nature of the American 

One advocated by the New Deal is government control in regulating 
our lives. The other calls for individual freedoms and all that 
initiative can produce. I hold with the latter viewpoint. I believe the 
returning veterans - and I have talked to many of them in the foxholes 
- will not be satisfied with a dole or a government handout. They want 
a respectable job in private industry where they will be recognized for 
what they produce, or they want an opportunity to start their own 
business. If the choice of this committee comes to me, I will be 
prepared to put on an aggressive and vigorous campaign on a platform of 
progressive liberalism designed to return our district to the 
Republican Party. 

Despite the fact that his closing sentence seemed to contradict 
what he had said before, Richard Nixon was tapped by the committee to 
carry the Republican banner into political battle against the seemingly 
unbeatable Mr. Voorhis. The "Committee of One Hundred" had hired an 
appealing symbol - one that could be well merchandised. He was young, 
industrious, well-educated, and very ambitious. His background 
exemplified the wholesome Protestant ethic of hard work and diligent 
self-improvement. Here was a young man who was going places. 

Up to then, Richard Nixon says, he had had little interest in 
politics, but he accepted the offer with alacrity: "Why did I take it? 
I'm a pessimist, but if I figure I've got a chance, I'll fight for it." 
As the friendly Stewart Alsop observes: "Nixon became a politician, in 
short, more because it seemed a good idea at the time than because of 
any profound political convictions. Having thus entered politics more 
or less by accident, one suspects th4t he thought of a political career 
much as another young veteran back from the wars might think of 

advertising, or meat packing, or bond selling - as a way to make a 
living and get ahead." 

Nixon's opponent, Jerry Voorhis, was a true maverick. Voorhis at 
one time had been a registered Socialist and was a staunch supporter of 
the New Deal's welfare and business control measures. But Voorhis broke 
with FDR on the guestion of the Federal Reserve System and deficit 
spending. Most Leftist politicians would rather slide down a bannister 
that turns into a razor blade than criticize the international banking 
fraternity, which probably contributes more money to the Democratic 
Party than do the labor unions. But Voorhis committed the unpardonable 
sin of introducing a bill into Congress calling for the end of the 
international banker-controlled Federal Reserve System. Voorhis then 
compounded the crime by writing a book called Out of Debt, Out of 
Danger for a conservative publisher, Henry Regnery and Company. Out of 
Debt, Out of Danger was a slashing attack on the international banking 
Insiders, who profit extensively from Keynesian deficit spending. FDR 
and his cronies had convinced most Americans that they need not worry 
about the mounting national debt because "we owe it 

to ourselves." Voorhis showed that we didn't owe it to ourselves, we 
owed it to the international bankers. Clearly, Voorhis had to go. He 
was a Liberal, but he was an anti-international banker Liberal - a 
variety scarcer than a woman of virtue in a house of ill-fame. Just 
what role, if any, the international banking clique played in Nixon's 
race against Voorhis is difficult to prove. It is reported, reliably we 
believe, that New York banking elements poured funds into the Nixon 
campaign and provided behind-the-scenes know-how from the Madison 
Avenue advertising firm of Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn, which 
also operates out of Los Angeles. Voorhis has hinted at this in print 
and been much more blunt about it in private conversations. William 
Costello, in his "unauthorized" biography of Nixon, wrote: 

Voorhis intimated later in his book that the Nixon campaign . 
headquarters may not have been guite so impoverished as this story [a 
magazine story by Mrs. Nixon, which portrayed a shoestring operation] 
would suggest. The congressman said the representative of a large New 
York financial house made a trip to California in October 1945, about 
the time the Committee of One Hundred was picking Nixon, and called on 
a number of influential people in Southern California. The emissary 
"bawled them out" for permitting Voorhis, whom he described as "one of 
the most dangerous men in Washington, " to continue to represent a part 
of California in the House. As a conseguence, Voorhis said, "many of 
the advertisements which ran in the district newspapers advocating my 
defeat came to the papers from a large advertising agency in Los 
Angeles [at a time when this now common practice was unheard of] , 
rather than from any source within the Twelfth District. And payment 
was made by check from that same 
agency . " 

Just how much or whether outside interests actually contributed 
to Nixon's campaign has never been made clear. 8 

It should be noted here that William Costello, a Liberal, 
portrays Voorhis as simply a champion of the "little man," and says 
nothing of his Out of Debt, Out of Danger, his 

advocacy of the dismantling of the Federal Reserve, or his opposition 
to the international banking establishment. Voorhis was much more than 
just a foe of "big business." He was a foe of "big banking," and there 
is a difference - a difference that was much larger then than now. 

Nixon waged an energetic and aggressive campaign against Voorhis. 
At first he wore his old Navy uniform while delivering speeches, until 
it was learned that rank-conscious ex-G.I.'s reacted to this practice 
with hostility. Nixon's campaign leaflets billed him as the "clean, 
forthright young American who fought in defense of his country in the 
stinking mud and jungles of the Solomons" while Voorhis "stayed safely 
behind the front in Washington." According to biographer Costello: 

. . . Nixon, canvassing the 200,000 voters of the district, 
introduced himself as a "liberal Republican." He refrained from 
attacking the New Deal in all its aspects, but he pulled no punches in 
attacking Voorhis. 

As he was to do so successfully in future campaigns, Nixon made a 
major issue of Communism. He told the Republican kickoff rally in 
Whittier on August 29, 1946: 

I want you to know that I am your candidate primarily because 
there are no special strings attached to me. I have no support from any 
special interest or pressure group. I welcome the opposition of the PAC 
[the CIO's Political Action Committee] , with its Communist principles 
and huge slush fund. 

Later Nixon referred to Voorhis as "the PAC candidate and his 
Communist friends." The charge was damning, but not true. The PAC was 
indeed controlled by Communists, but Voorhis had been refused PAC 
support. Nixon's allegation was based on the fact that a local CIO unit 
had requested national approval of Voorhis, but it was rejected. The 
maverick Voorhis was not only anti-international banker, 
he was also strongly anti-Communist, and while he was a member of the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities had fought Communist 
penetration of PAC. The West Coast Communist paper, People's World, 
complained bitterly that "Voorhis is against unity with Communists on 
any issue under any circumstances." 

But Voorhis was extremely vulnerable on the issue of socialism. 
Over and over candidate Nixon told audiences: "A vote for Nixon is a 
vote against . . . socialization of free American institutions." 
Liberals resented, and resent to this day, Nixon's linking of socialism 
.with Communism. In doing so they ignore the fact that Marx made no 
distinction between the two and that it is a basic tenet of Communist 
philosophy that a nation must adopt socialism before Communism is 
possible. It is ironic that as President, Nixon has supported and 
expanded the very legislation and concepts he used to lash his first 
political opponent with. In the end, Nixon's aggressive tactics worked, 
and he was able to pull off one of the major upsets of the year by 
trouncing Voorhis 64,784 to 49,431. 

As a Congressman Nixon carved out a moderately Conservative 
voting record on domestic issues and a Liberal one on foreign policy. 
From the beginning Nixon was a supporter of foreign giveaway programs, 
which have long been demanded by the international socialists and the 
CFR. Joseph Stalin had stated earlier, concerning the importance of 
foreign aid to the triumph of socialism: 

. . . It is essential that the proletariat of the advanced 
countries should render real and prolonged aid to the backward 
nationalities in their cultural and economic development. Unless such 
aid is forthcoming, it will be impossible to bring the various nations 

and peoples within a single world economic system that is so essential 
to the final triumph of socialism. 9 

Of course, such aid was indeed forthcoming. 

In Nixon and Rockefeller Stewart Alsop tells us: 

Nixon has also loudly and consistently advocated an adequate 
foreign-aid program. Indeed, in Nelson Rockefeller's struggle ... on 
this issue he was Rockefeller's strongest . . . ally. 

Ever since the Herter committee days ... he has been a strong 
advocate of foreign aid, with no visible political profit to himself. 
He is an internationalist, an activist, an interventionist ... in 
foreign policy, to 

Nixon defended his foreign aid stands on the basis that it was in 
America's interest to build up the free world so that it could resist 
Communism. Unfortunately, while examples can be cited in which foreign 
aid has done just that, ' in many more instances foreign aid money has 
been used to socialize countries and to oust anti-Communist leaders and 
replace them with "neutralists," who usually side with the Iron Curtain 
countries. Nixon's "internationalist" policies are simply those of the 
Council on Foreign Relations in its efforts to bring about a world 
superstate. Nixon's admitted mentor in this area, Christian Herter 
(CFR) , a top Insider who later became Secretary of State after Dulles' 
death, had married into the Standard Oil fortune and served its 
internationalist interests well. 

Nixon accompanied Herter to Europe to compile the reports that 
became the basis of the $17 billion Marshall Plan. Large amounts of the 
money were used to rebuild West Germany, where much of the industry had 
been bombed out during World War 11 but even more had been given to the 
Russians. In the aftermath of Yalta, the Bolsheviks had been allowed to 
cart off to Russia from West Germany entire factories, down to the last 
drill press, nut, and bolt. Nixon never mentioned this as one of the 
real reasons for the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan is usually 
pointed to as an example of the "success" of the foreign aid program, 
but it 

actually was used to promote socialism in Western European countries. 
Although the program was justified to Americans in the name of "anti- 
Communism, " the Plan had been designed in part by a Russian-born 
Communist immigrant named Lewis Lorwin, who, according to Congressman 
Edward Cox, had been an associate of Leon Trotsky in the abortive 
Communist revolution of 1905. On March 29, 1948, after listing numerous 
persons in positions making policy for the Marshall Plan whose Far Left 
and Communist front backgrounds indicated what was happening, Cox told 
his fellow Congressmen: "To permit pro-Communists, Socialists, or 
collectivists of any hue to administer this American program, at any 
level, would be a grave mistake." 

Even the name of the program was phony. The Marshall Plan was put 
together by Herter and his associates, including Communist Lewis 
Lorwin. Secretary of State George C. Marshall's name was tacked on to 
the Plan as a signal to Leftist forces around the world that the Plan 
was controlled by the Left. Marshall (CFR), a man who had been 
mysteriously promoted over the heads of thirty-four superiors to head 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff just as he was about to be retired after an 
unspectacular career, was well known in sophisticated revolutionary 
circles as one of their own. 

Early in his Congressional career Nixon began to develop his 
reputation among both Liberals and Conservatives as a cynical 
opportunist. "Almost from the start," writes Costello, "Nixon showed a 
grasp of the opportunistic art of working one side of the fence while a 
bill was being amended and perfected, and then switching to the other 
side or being conveniently absent when the measure came to a final 
vote." 11 He was also careful to build contacts into both Conservative 
and Liberal wings of the Republican Party. In those days Nixon was a 
true pragmatist, interested not in ideology but in building his chosen 
career. One political observer noted that Nixon could spend one evening 
with the 

"Modern Republicans, " convincing them he was their best ball carrier, 
and the next evening could convince the backers of General MacArthur 
that he was their man. As Nixon learned the Washington ropes, he became 
aware, possibly due to his close association with Herter, that the 
behind-thescenes power in the Republican Party lay with Tom Dewey 
(CFR) , two-time unsuccessful Republican candidate for the Presidency. 
Dewey ran the Eastern Liberal Establishment wing of the Party for the 
Rockefeller and related New York international banking interests. 
Probably through his connections with Dewey, Nixon became a founder of 
Republican Advance, the Republican offshoot of the ADA that was 
discussed in the previous chapter. Republican Advance was established 
to mitigate the influence of the Taft wing of the Republican Party and 
water down its anti-socialist policies. It was financed by Insiders 
Nelson Rockefeller and Sidney Weinberg, who wished to make the policies 
of the Republican Party a carbon copy of Democrat Party policies. 
Later, Republican Advance was to become "Citizens for Eisenhower, " and 
to steamroller the outmaneuvered Taft people. 

One of the key decisions of Nixon's Congressional career was to 
accept a proffered assignment on the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities. Weighed in the balance was the fact that the Committee 
offered an unparalleled opportunity to become widely known in a hurry 
and to take advantage of the growing concern of the country over the 
advances of Communism. Against this was the fact that the Committee had 
been the recipient of a colossal smear job from Communists, pro- 
Communists, and woolly-minded Liberals, many of whom had been sucked 
into Communist fronts and were not happy about the exposure of their 
indiscretions. After due consideration Nixon decided to accept the 
Committee assignment - a decision which started a chain of events that 
would eventually put the young lawyer from Whittier into the White 
House. The political climax of 

Nixon's Congressional career was the Alger Hiss affair. In the short 
space of 134 days, between August 3 and December 15, 1948, Nixon's name 
became a household word, and as the two Hiss perjury trials dragged 
through the courts in 1949, with sensational revelation following 
sensational revelation, the "fighting Quaker," as Nixon loved to 
categorize himself, became a national celebrity. 

During the summer of 1948, the House Committee called upon 
Whittaker Chambers, a senior editor at Time Magazine, to testify. Nixon 
recalled later that the witness "made charges which at the time seemed 
fantastic - that he'd been a Communist, that he had worked with Hiss, 
[Harry Dexter] White, [John] Abt, [Lee] Pressman, [Nathan] Witt, and a 
number of other people who were also connected with the government." 
Hiss had been a very important man in the New Deal, although he was not 
well known to the man in the street. According to Nixon biographers 
Mazo and Hess: 

. . . [Hiss] was highly respected in the government, and also in 
legal and diplomatic circles. Only the year before he had been 
appointed president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
at a salary of $20,000, which was $5,000 more than what was then paid 
Cabinet members and congressmen. The Carnegie board which hired him was 
composed of eminent men. Its chairman was John Foster Dulles, the 
Republican party's foremost expert on foreign affairs .... 12 

Hiss seemed beyond reproach. He had been at FDR's side while the 
ailing and failing President was dealing with the Russians, and he also 
had been the principal architect of the United Nations Charter. Mazo 
and Hess continued: 

. . . . Hiss had been principal adviser to the American 
delegation at the first United Nations General Assembly Session. Before 
that he had distinguished himself as secretary-general of the 
conference in San Francisco which created the United Nations. 
Furthermore, he had accompanied the Roosevelt party 
to Yalta and had been executive secretary of the Dumbarton 
Oaks Conference in 1944 .... 

Hiss's was by far the most important name dragged out of the 
reluctant Chambers, and Hiss demanded an immediate hearing to answer 
Chambers' charges. 

On the witness stand Hiss was smooth as glass. Not only did his 
confident testimony contrast with the halting and tortured words of 
Chambers, but the appearance of the tall, slim, impeccably dressed 
Harvard graduate also contrasted favorably with that of the dumpy and 
rumpled Chambers. When Hiss concluded his testimony, the general 
feeling in Washington was that the long-controversial House Committee 
had just slit its own throat. Almost everyone was convinced that 
Chambers had duped the Committee into using it as a forum from which he 
could slander people. Congressman John Rankin, an outspoken 
segregationist from Mississippi who was hated by the Liberals with an 
absolute passion, was so moved by Hiss's testimony that he left his 
seat to shake Hiss's hand. That morning President Truman told a press 
conference that Republicans had cooked up spy hearings "as a red 
herring. " 

Legend has it that Nixon, due to his courtroom experience, 
detected that Hiss's testimony was just a little too smooth. Later, to 
explain his "hunch, " the California Congressman called attention to a 
few lines of testimony that had seemed to strike a phony note from the 
first . 

Q. You say you have never seen Mr. Chambers? A. The name means 
absolutely nothing to me. 

Nixon, it seemed, perceived that Hiss was not answering the 
question. Nixon later explained: 

As I read the testimony later I became convinced that if Hiss 

was lying he was lying in such a way as to avoid perjury, with a 
very careful use of phrasing. He never made a categorical statement. He 
would say, "To the best of my recollection" over and over again. He 
never said, "I have never known Whittaker Chambers." He constantly 
reiterated when the question was put to him, "I have never known a man 
by the name of Whittaker Chambers." In other words, he was too careful 

in his testimony, too smooth. It was very possibly an act, it seemed to 
me . 

Again, legend has it that, on the basis of these suspicions, 
Nixon followed up on the case and personally re-interviewed both 
Chambers and Hiss. This he did do, but not on his own initiative. The 
material on Hiss was not new in government security circles. Not only 
had Chambers told other investigators privately about Hiss on previous 
occasions, but the FBI had also been hot on Hiss's trail. In 1964, 
Nelson Rockefeller admitted that when he was attending the San 
Francisco conference as Assistant Secretary of State, he had met with 
FBI men in his hotel room every morning at 7:30.* According to Rocky, 
"They came in one morning and said, "We've got the goods on Alger 
Hiss. ' ' ° 13 

In a TV interview on CBS in 1962, Senator Karl Mundt, who at the 
time of the Hiss case was chairman of the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities, revealed that an Assistant Secretary of State 
named Jack Peurifoy had shown him the State Department's dossier on 
Hiss, which "Truman would not let House investigators see." According 
to the Associated Press, "Mundt said his look at the security file on 
Hiss came before Richard Nixon, then a congressman, had 

*Why did Rockefeller wait nearly twenty years before revealing this 
information about fellow CFR member Alger Hiss? Why did Rockefeller not 
relay this information to his superiors in the State Department? His 
excuse was that he had the feeling that "maybe this [the FBI] was a 
fascist organization in our midst." This provides us with a valuable 
clue as to the esteem in which Rockefeller holds J. Edgar Hoover and 
the F.B.I. His esteem for the United Nations, on the other hand, is 
indicated by the fact that, even though the UN Charter had been largely 
written by Soviet spy Alger Hiss, who was serving as Administrative 
Secretary General, the Rockefeller family had donated the land upon 
which the UN building stands. 

made up his mind that Hiss was guilty." 14 Mundt was told by Peurifoy, 
"I know that what you're saying about Alger Hiss is true as I have 
access to the files of the State Department, which Truman will not let 
you have . " 

There were at this time a group of ex-Communists and former FBI 
agents in Washington who were working diligently to try to get the 
facts about Communist subversion and infiltration of government made 
public. This group worked on Nixon for months to try to impress upon 
him the importance of going after Hiss. One of these men, whose name 
still cannot be revealed, told the author: 

We had an awful time with Nixon. Nixon was very timid about it 
[pursuing Hiss] . He didn't want to do it. Some other members of 
Congress were recruited to apply additional pressure on him. He was 
anything but a tiger and some of us who helped create the Nixon image 
have lived to regret it. We didn't realize the extent to which he was 
chicken. He has been consistent in this particular weakness ever since. 

Nixon had reason to fear taking on Hiss, despite the fact that he 
knew Chambers was telling the truth. Hiss was not only the fair-haired 
boy of the New Dealers, he was also a member of the Council on Foreign 
Relations, and John Foster Dulles (CFR) , a top Insider and Rockefeller 
relative who had served as an attorney for numerous international 
banking firms and who was later to be Ike's Secretary of State, had 

appointed him as president of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. In 
taking on Alger Hiss, Nixon was taking on not only the street-bunder- 
level Communists and their allies and sympathizers, but also his own 
future partners in the Eastern Liberal Establishment. On the other side 
of the scales was the opportunity to achieve fame and political 
advancement on the tide of revulsion against Communism that was rising 
across the land. Nixon decided to take the chance and the Nixon legend 
was born. 

Commenting on this legend, Martin Dies, for many years chairman 
of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, wrote: 

. . . in the case of Alger Hiss, there are many facts which have 
never been known by the public. Our people believe, for instance, that 
the discovery of Hiss was largely the work of Richard Nixon. The truth 
is that he had very little to do with it .... 1 s 

Dies continued, providing background to the Hiss case: 

. . . . We had known about Hiss for some time. As a matter of 
fact, Whittaker Chambers had come to my office several times and had 
told me about Hiss in very general and vague language. I knew what he 
was talking about because I had the information supplied by the Prime 
Minister of Canada; but Chambers was not ready to break openly with the 
Communists and testify. I knew that without his testimony we could not 
make out a case. I did what I could to persuade Chambers to testify as 
an act of atonement for his complicity in the theft of our secrets . . 

Dies went on to explain: 

...I quit Congress [for reasons of health and election opposition 
from his own party leader, FDR] and Chambers began to contact my very 
able Chief Investigator and Secretary, Robert Stripling. When Whittaker 
Chambers finally decided to talk, it was to Stripling. Stripling could 
have given those facts to any member of the Committee and it would have 
made him famous and guaranteed his promotion to the Senate. He chose to 
select Richard Nixon, an obscure Congressman from California. The rest 
is history. It was the "breaking" of this story which put Nixon in the 
Senate and Vice Presidency. Richard Nixon should have been eternally 
grateful to Stripling and it was publicized that Stripling would be 
offered an important post in the Eisenhower Administration. He deserved 
it and had the ability to fill any post in the government with credit 
to the Administration . 

. . . I always had a feeling that Stripling wanted the 
recognition he deserved. So far as anyone else knows, he was never 
offered the opportunity to accept or reject. Nixon was placating 
the "liberals" and the last thing the "liberals" would have tolerated 
was Robert Stripling in an important position. Furthermore, Eisenhower 
was a protege of Roosevelt. He was implicated with Roosevelt in the 
stupid blunders which made it possible for Communism to become the 
greatest menace of all times. Eisenhower shared the views of Roosevelt 
about the Communists as disclosed by his various public statements 
which I quoted at length in my book, Martin Dies' Story. Nixon dared 
not displease Ike, and the recommendation of Stripling to an important 
post would have been very unacceptable to Eisenhower. 

Nixon used Robert Stripling, and then ditched him as he has so 
many others who befriended him during his climb to the political peaks. 
Once Nixon made the decision that there was more to be gained than lost 
by going after Hiss, he was persistent. Hiss helped to seal his own 
doom by suing Chambers for calling him a Communist. Under that 
pressure, Whittaker Chambers produced a thick envelope containing four 
pages in Hiss' handwriting and a number of typewritten documents which 
he said had been copied on Alger Hiss' typewriter. He charged the 
envelope contained confidential State Department Documents which Hiss 
had pilfered and passed on to him in the service of the International 
Communist Conspiracy. Examination showed the papers were in fact copies 
of authentic top-secret documents; and other testimony established that 
the transmission to the Russians of verbatim texts of these papers 
would have enabled the Soviet government to break the State 
Department's secret code. 

So powerful were the Communists in government that even in the 
face of all of this there was an intimation from the Justice Department 
that the Hiss-Chambers case would be dropped unless additional evidence 
could be found. At that point Mr. Nixon performed his penultimate 
service in the Hiss case. At a private interview with Chambers on the 
latter 's farm in Maryland, Congressman Nixon learned that Chambers had 
in his possession additional documentary 

evidence. The next evening, in a cloak-and-dagger scene that fired the 
national imagination, an agent of the Committee served a subpoena on 
the ex-Communist; Chambers led him in darkness to a pumpkin in his 
garden, and from the pumpkin he drew five rolls of microfilm containing 
photostatic copies of confidential and secret documents stolen from the 
State Department. 

A New York Grand Jury, on the verge of indicting Whittaker 
Chambers for perjury, reversed itself when Nixon rushed to New York and 
testified that it must have been Hiss who lied in saying he had not 
turned official documents over to Chambers. Simultaneously, the FBI was 
able to establish that the pumpkin papers had been typed on the same 
Woodstock typewriter as letters from Mrs. Priscilla Hiss. On December 
fifteenth, the Grand Jury climaxed its investigation by bringing in an 
indictment for perjury against Alger Hiss, who was later found guilty 
and jailed.* 

For his role in exposing Hiss, Richard Nixon earned the undying 
hatred of a vast segment of the American Left. Hiss had been a fair- 
haired boy among the Liberals. Adlai Stevenson (CFR) , Felix Frankfurter 
(CFR) , and Dean Acheson (CFR) had served as character witnesses at his 
trial, and many another super-Liberal had gone out on a limb to defend 
him. Until Nixon's persistent investigation (actually Stripling's, but 
Nixon received credit for it) produced the evidence, the dapper and 
urbane Hiss was on the way to being cleared. Nixon left a lot of 
Liberal Democrats with egg on their faces as he concluded the 
experience, a national hero. 

To this day many knee-jerk Liberals have never forgiven Nixon for 
his overrated role in pursuing Hiss, even though it was virtually his 
last anti-Communist act. Ever since the Hiss 

.While on trial, Hiss stayed at the home of Helen Lehman Buttenwieser, 
whose husband, Benjamin J. Buttenwieser (CFR) is a partner in Kuhn, 
Loeb and Company, the international banking firm that was the major 
bankroller of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and has had close ties 
with Russia ever since. 

case Nixon has worked hard to ingratiate himself with the Establishment 
Left, and though he continued to flay Communism verbally until 1968, 
there has been no action since the Hiss case to back up the laudable 
talk. Nixon, as Dies stated in his book, Martin Dies' Story, "was the 
only Congressman ever to profit by anti-Communist activity, and he 
profited only because he backed away from it." He parlayed the Hiss 
case into a Senate seat, the Vice Presidency, and eventually the 
Presidency. Seldom if ever in American political history has a man 
wrung so much mileage over so many years from a single act. 

Even today, the Nixon-Hiss legend lives on. The ADA type of 
fuzzy-minded Liberal still goes into contortions when Nixon's name is 
mentioned. And although it is obvious that Nixon is now in league with 
the Eastern Liberal Establishment Insiders and has accepted their 
policy of working towards convergence with Communism in a world 
superstate, among well-meaning Republicans Nixon still benefits from 
the Hiss case. When it is pointed out that he is following the same CFR 
policies of appeasing the Communists as did Roosevelt, Truman, 
Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, the inevitable retort is: "Yes, but 
how about the Hiss case?" 

The next step on Nixon's ladder to the Presidency was the capture 
of one of California's Senate seats. The incumbent, Conservative 
Democrat Sheridan Downey, was challenged in the Democratic primary by 
ultra-Lef twing Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas. Mrs. Douglas, a 
former actress and wife of film star Melvyn Douglas, had been a member 
of two organizations cited by government investigating bodies as 
Communist fronts, while her husband, in addition to being a member of 
the ACLU, had joined six cited organizations. Nixon seemed like a long 
shot until Downey dropped out of the Democratic primary, naming reasons 
of health. Instead of facing a Conservative, incumbent, Nixon now faced 
the vulnerable Helen Gahagan Douglas. 

Those were lean days for many Leftist politicians. The Truman 
Administration had been rocked by corruption and spy scandals. To top 
it off, in June of 1950 the Korean "police action" broke out, and those 
whose voting records indicated they were "soft on Communism" were in 
trouble . 

When Nixon announced his candidacy for Senator he declared that 
the main issue was "simply the choice between freedom and state 
socialism." 16 Although Nixon never, but never, uses the word 
"socialism" any more, when he announced for the Senate he proclaimed: 
"Call it planned economy, the Fair Deal or social welfare - but it is 
still the same old Socialist baloney, any way you slice it." 17 

The Nixon-Douglas campaign was one of the bitterest on record. 
Taking a cue from his friend, Florida Congressman George Smathers, who 
had knocked off rival Claude Pepper with the well-deserved appellation, 
"Red Pepper," Nixon dubbed Mrs. Douglas "the Pink Lady." Nixon Red- 
baited the Pink Lady unmercifully. The Republican candidate told 
audiences : 

. . . if she had had her way, the Communist conspiracy in the 
United States would never have been exposed ... it just so 
happens that my opponent is a member of a small cligue which 
joins the notorious Communist party-liner, Vito Marcantonio of 
New York, in voting time after time against measures that are for 
the security of this country. 18 

Marcantonio was a Congressman from New York City, where he 
represented the rather openly Communist-controlled American Labor 

Party. Mrs. Douglas retorted by trying to hang the Marcantonio 
albatross back around Nixon's neck, citing a couple of bills on which 
they had voted together. But it did not work against Nixon, who was 
basing much of his campaign on his exaggerated role in the Hiss case. 

Mazo and Hess, among Nixon's most favorable biographers, comment 
on the reciprocal mud slinging: 

An analysis of the Nixon and Douglas campaigns shows that the 
most notable difference was in the adroitness and calmness with which 
Nixon and his people executed their hyperbole and innuendo. When the 
Nixon camp questioned her fitness to be even a Democrat, for instance, 
or bemoaned her inability to judge between what was good for America 
and what was good for Russia, it was like a team of experienced 
surgeons performing masterful operations for the benefit of humanity . 
. . . when compared with the surgeons of the Nixon camp, Mrs. Douglas' 
operators performed like apprentice butchers .... 19 

Nixon's piece de resistance in the campaign was the famous "Pink 
Sheet," a leaflet printed on pink paper (for obvious reasons), which 
the candidate's workers distributed by the basketful. Headlined 
"Douglas-Marcantonio Voting record," it began: 

Many persons have requested a comparison of the voting records of 
Congresswoman Helen Douglas and the notorious Communist party-liner, 
Congressman Vito Marcantonio of New York. 

Mrs. Douglas and Marcantonio have been members of Congress 
together since January 1, 1945. During that period, Mrs. Douglas voted 
the same as Marcantonio 354 times. While it should not be expected that 
a member of the House of Representatives should always vote in 
opposition to Marcantonio, it is significant to note, not only the 
great number of times which Mrs. Douglas voted in agreement with him, 
but also the issues on which almost without exception they always saw 
eye to eye, to-wit: Un-American Activities and Internal Security. 

The sheet ended by asserting there was a "DouglasMarcantonio 
Axis . " 

Naturally Liberals went into convulsions over the "Pink Sheet," 
and the less sophisticated ones still do. Defenders of Mrs. Douglas 
pointed out that Nixon himself had voted with Marcantonio 112 times 
during his four years in Congress (vs. Mrs. Douglas's 354 times in six 
years) . The Pink Lady's apologists also pointed out that many Liberals 
had voted 

with Marcantonio on domestic issues, but this came off as rather a 
castigation of Liberals as socialists than a legitimate defense of Mrs. 
Douglas . 

But in his ruthlessness, Nixon had passed over some important 
differences between Mrs. Douglas and Marcantonio. For one thing, there 
was no "Douglas-Marcantonio Axis," despite the similarity of their 
voting records. According to Mazo and Hess: 

In the California election, when Mrs. Douglas was first tied to 
Marcantonio by her Democratic primary opponent, Marcantonio went to a 
friend of Nixon's and said, chuckling, "Tell Nicky to get on this thing 
because it is a good idea." Marcantonio disliked Mrs. Douglas intensely 
and normally used an obscene five-letter word when referring to her in 
private conversations. 2° 

There were also several key votes concerning Communism where Mrs. 
Douglas and Marcantonio voted against each other. Although Mrs. Douglas 
was blind in many ways about Communism (as she remains today) and was 
used by the Communists, she was not consciously pro-Communist. Mazo and 
Hess admitted: 

. . . she was actually a vigorous foe of the Communist party and 
had fought Henry Wallace's Progressive party in a congressional 
district [Beverly Hills] where that took considerable courage. 21 

It was the "Pink Sheet" that led Nixon's opponents in the 
Democratic Party to label him "Tricky Dick." Later, Republicans who 
worked closely with him were to learn that the Democrats had assessed 
Mr. Nixon's character, if not his politics, correctly. 

Another Nixon stunt that raised a furor during the Senatorial 
campaign was literature, mailed to thousands of registered Democrats, 
that pictured a smiling Nixon and family and greeted readers: "Fellow 
Democrats!" The excuse 

was that in those days in California politicians could cross-file and 
run on both the Republican and Democratic tickets simultaneously in 
primaries. Nixon had cross-filed in the Senate primary, but to address 
voters in the general election as "Fellow Democrats" was very tricky 
business . 

As a climax to one of the twentieth century's most undignified 
campaigns, in the final hours the Nixon forces launched a telephone 
drive, promising that for anyone who answered the telephone with "Vote 
for Nixon," there would be: 

PRIZES GALORE!!! Electric Clocks, Silex coffeemakers with 
heating units - General Electric automatic toasters - silver salt 
and pepper shakers, sugar and creamer sets, candy and butter 
dishes, etc., etc. WIN WITH NIXON! 

And win Nixon did - by 680,000 votes. At thirty-seven, Richard M. 
Nixon was a United States Senator from California. 

As an epilogue to this contest, in 1957 Nixon was guestioned by a 
British reporter about the campaign against Douglas. With dignified 
sadness he replied, "I'm sorry about that episode. I was a very young 
man . " 

Nixon's Senate career was short, lasting only nineteen months 
before his Vice Presidential campaign began, and was undistinguished, 
as one would expect from a freshman Senator. Nixon's voting record was 
very similar to the one he had achieved in the House, voting 
Conservative on most domestic issues and Liberal-internationalist on 
foreign policy. Nixon did, however, take a strong stand against the 
pulledpunches war in Korea. "Certainly we cannot ask our men to give 
their lives unless we back them to the hilt ..." he told the Women's 
National Republican Club in New York. Nixon was very much a hawk on the 
Korean conflict, and was a strong supporter of General Douglas 
MacArthur after the General was fired by Truman for having the temerity 
to try 

to win the war. "MacArthur," he said, "was fired simply because he had 
the good sense and patriotism to ask that the hands of our fighting men 
in Korea be untied." Nixon pleaded for the avoidance of "tragic 
appeasement" and promised that the "policies of MacArthur will bring 
victory and peace in the Pacific . . . . " 

On April 1 1, 1951, Nixon took the floor of the Senate to 
proclaim: "I believe that rather than follow the advice of those who 
would appease the Communists ... we should do what we intended to do 
when we went into Korea, bring the war to a successful military 
conclusion . ..." In order to accomplish this, the junior Senator 
from California recommended that the United States adopt MacArthur's 
program of stopping all free-world trade with Red China, bombing enemy 
bases on Chinese soil, imposing a naval blockade, and using Chiang Kai- 
shek ' s troops . 

On April 27, Nixon made another speech before the Senate 
ridiculing the Administration's policy of fighting a land war "instead 
of using to the fullest extent our naval power and our air power." 

"We are using our airplanes only for the purpose of tactical 
bombing," he said. "We are not using our navy for the purpose of a 
blockade .... We are unable to win a military victory in Korea. We 
are unable to do so because we are restricted in the use of both 
strategic bombing and naval power." 

On May 1, Nixon expressed his thoughts about the then current 
peace talks: "I believe the only way we can end this war is not by a 
ninety-day-long " peace talk' but by military victories and economic 
blockades to shut out all foreign trade and smuggling such as now 
continues to aid Red China. There can be no "political' settlement." 

All of this advice was militarily and politically sound; if it 
had been followed we would not be wallowing in the current mess in 
Asia. Moreover, by substituting the word "Vietnam" 

for the word "Korea, " you have a perfect argument against the current 
policies of the Nixon Administration. 

By this time Nixon was an acknowledged "comer" in the Republican 
Party. He had proved that an orthodox Republican could defeat a Liberal 
Democrat in an industrial state where one million more Democrats than 
Republicans were duly registered. Nixon now became the most sought- 
after Republican, and regularly broke away from his Senatorial duties 
to preach the gospel of national salvation through Republicanism. 
Always, the young Senator made a major issue of Communism, as in this 
statement : 

. . . one thing can be said to our credit which cannot be said 
for the party in power, that is, that we have never had the support of 
the Communists in the past. We have never asked for that support. We do 
not have it now, and we shall never ask for it or accept it in the 
future: And for that reason a Republican administration, we can be 
sure, will .conduct a thoroughgoing housecleaning of Communists and 
fellow travelers in the administrative branch of the government because 
we have no fear of finding any Communist skeletons in our political 
closets . 22 

There is much mystery surrounding the events that led to Richard 
Nixon's selection to run on the Eisenhower ticket. We shall never know 
the whole truth, as we can never find out for sure what goes on in the 
back room among the boys with the cigars. Any story that is released to 
reporters is bound to be a heavily censored and edited version. In most 
cases the decisions which shape history are not put into the history 
books. As Harold Lavine remarks in his Smoke Filled Rooms - The 
Confidential Papers of Robert Humphreys (Humphreys was a professional 
staff member of the Republican National Committee) : 

Nothing in politics just happens. There is always someone who 
sets the stage for it, writes the dialog, rehearses the actors, prompts 
them from the wings. True, sometimes the play takes on 
a life of its own; the actors begin to ad-lib, the scenery collapses, 
the audience joins in the action. 23 

Some surface facts concerning Nixon's rise to the Vice Presidency 
are known, however. In May 1951, Nixon went to Europe as a member of 
the U.S. Delegation to the UN's World Health Organization. On June 5, 
while debating a bill on the floor of the Senate, Nixon mentioned that 
he had dropped in on Eisenhower at NATO headguarters in Paris. A week 
before leaving for Europe, Nixon had met in New York with the Eastern 
Liberal Establishment's powerful kingmaker, Thomas E. Dewey.* 
According to Mazo and Hess: 

His [Nixon's] New York appearance stood out because of what 
happened rather than what he said in his speech [at a fund-raising 
dinner] , for Governor Dewey informed Nixon after the dinner that he 
should be the candidate for Vice President on the Eisenhower ticket. 24 

"The two of us sat around for about an hour or an hour and a half 
before he took his train," Dewey said. "That was the occasion on which 
I discussed with him briefly the possibility of him becoming the Vice- 
President." 25 It was no doubt Dewey who arranged for Nixon to see 
Eisenhower while he was in Paris. Dewey wasn't pulling an unknown 
rabbit out of a hat. Although Dewey had never been in the House or the 
Senate, he nonetheless controlled many Liberal Republicans and, as a 
political controller for the Insider Establishment, was a behind-the- 
scenes mover and shaker. According to those who know Nixon well, Nixon 
had become aware of the power and money wielded by Dewey and his New 
York colleagues, and as a highly ambitious man 

*One of Dewey's sons, Thomas E. Dewey Jr., is now a partner in the 
international banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, the organization 
that financed Leon Trotsky and the Russian Revolution. 
he had gravitated in their direction. This gravitation was tangibly 
expressed when Nixon became a founding member of the leftist Republican 
Advance . 

Nixon, however, found himself in a sticky position as the 
nominating convention approached. He could not publicly endorse 
Eisenhower, because as a member of the California delegation he was 
pledged by law to support Governor Earl Warren as a favorite-son 
candidate until Warren released the seventy delegates; and Warren was 
not about to release any delegates, because he was hoping for an 
Eisenhower-Taf t deadlock in which the convention would turn to him. 
Also, there was already no love lost between Warren and Nixon. Warren, 
who ran for governor on both Republican and Democratic tickets (thus 
taking advantage of California's then-existing cross-filing system, as 
had Nixon in running for the Senate) , had never endorsed Nixon for 
either Congressman or Senator. 

Paul Hoffman, as one of Eisenhower's chief lieutenants, had met 
twice with Nixon before the convention, to try to line up the 
California delegation for Eisenhower on the second ballot if the 
General needed only a few more votes to win and Warren's candidacy 
seemed hopeless. Since California came early in the roll call, a switch 
of its delegation's votes to Eisenhower could be psychologically 
crucial. The Eisenhower forces knew that if Warren released the 

delegation, Eisenhower would receive fifty-two of the votes to eighteen 
for Taft. 

Meanwhile, in early June, Nixon conducted a private poll by 
mailing 23,000 letters to his 1950 precinct workers, asking them to 
name not their second choice, but "the strongest candidate the 
Republicans could nominate for president." It was charged, but never 
proved, that the Citizens for Eisenhower Committee paid for printing 
and addressing the survey. When Warren learned of Nixon's straw poll, 
the feathers hit the fan. Warren's people regarded the 

canvass as a stab in the back and a deliberate attempt to undermine the 
governor's position as a favorite-son candidate. If Warren won, it 
could do nothing to enhance his position; if he lost it would be a 
crushing psychological blow. Warren's fears were soon confirmed, as 
news began to "leak" from Nixon's office that Eisenhower was running 
far in front. Of course, Nixon's people were doing the counting. 

Nixon went to Chicago on July 1, several days in advance of the 
rest of the delegation, as a member of the platform committee. Three 
days later he flew from Chicago to Denver and boarded the California 
delegation's convention train there, whereupon chaos ensued. There are 
numerous versions of what happened, but what had been a gay party 
disintegrated, and more intrigue took place on that train than on the 
Orient Express. Nixon began meeting with delegates in the lounge car, 
claiming that Eisenhower was a cinch on the first ballot (which Nixon 
could not have thought unless he already knew that many delegates were 
going to be stolen from Taft), and suggesting that the California 
delegation jump on the bandwagon so as not to waste its votes. If it 
did so, argued the Senator, it would be in a position to suggest as a 
quid pro quo the choice of Nixon as veep. Bitterness ran high among the 
Warren loyalists, who considered Nixon's actions as self-serving and a 
double-cross of the man he was legally committed to. The Warren people 
even talked of denying the Senator a berth on the train. By the time 
the train arrived in Chicago the split in the delegation was wider than 
the Grand Canyon, and Nixon detrained at a suburban station in order to 
avoid reporters' questions. 

Having nudged the knife into Warren, Nixon now slipped the 
stiletto into Taft. He joined the move to outflank the Taft supporters 
by denying credentials to sixty-eight Southern delegates committed to 
Taft who were being challenged by Eisenhower delegations. It was at 
this crucial juncture that Nixon showed his hand publicly for the first 
time. Dashing to 

the microphone, Nixon addressed the California delegation and accused 
those who were the victims of theft of being thieves. The non- 
Machiavellian Taft people were dumbfounded and outflanked. In reply to 
pleas that the convention should accept the majority opinion of the 
credentials committee, Nixon proclaimed: 

If we were to feel that we were bound automatically to accept the 
decisions of our committees here, there would be no reason for us to 
come to the convention at all. We could leave the nomination entirely 
up to committees. 

Of course, this was a complete non sequitur, but in the emotion 
of the moment it swayed many. The California delegation voted fifty- 
seven to eight to cast the state's vote for the misnamed "fair play" 
resolution. As Costello observed: "From that moment the drift toward 
Eisenhower became a stampede, and Nixon's future was assured. "2 6 

On July 11, Eisenhower was nominated on the first ballot, and the 
course of American history was dramatically changed. Future history may 
show that on that day America lost one of its best opportunities to 
save the Republic from the International Conspiracy of which Communism 
is an integral part - but only a part. From that day to this it has 
been all down hill for America. The Republic still can be saved, but at 
a much greater price than would have been required had Robert Taft been 
elected President of the United States. 

That same day the first of two caucuses to select the General's 
running mate took place in Eisenhower's suite at the Blackstone Hotel. 
At the meetings, those involved went through the motions of considering 
numerous possibilities before settling on the man who had been pre- 
selected months in advance by the Dewey clique. Nixon's name was 
introduced by Dewey, who later recollected: 

There were a lot of people with a lot of views. I waited until 
they had gotten down through the list. I didn't say much about it, 
until finally they had gotten from the East all the way across to the 
West. Then I named Nixon as the logical nominee. 27 

No one offered any objections, and Paul Hoffman, as chief 
spokesman for Citizens for Eisenhower, was invited to put his group on 
record . 

"I told them that everything I had heard about Senator Nixon was 
good," the Establishment stooge later wrote in Colliers magazine. 28 "I 
looked on him as one of the Republicans who had an enlightened view 
[i.e., Liberalinternationalist-one world] on foreign affairs, and I 
thought that a man of his views should run with General Eisenhower." 

Hoffman intimated that the Dewey forces were prepared to make a 
fight for Nixon if necessary, but as it turned out there was no need to 
do that. Nixon had much to recommend him as the candidate. He was 
geographically right, had a reputation as a fighter against corruption, 
subversion, and Communism, and was a vigorous campaigner. He was also 
regarded as a "bridge" to the alienated Taft people, to keep them from 
bolting the party in disgust after seeing the nomination stolen from 
their candidate. This role Nixon filled admirably, even though Stewart 
Alsop was later to write: 

The admiration for Nixon among the Taf t-worshippers is 
essentially irrational, since Nixon contributed to Taf t ' s last defeat 
in 1952 and since he has none of Taft's hankering for a simpler past. 

At this time in his career, Nixon was by no means a member of the 
Establishment, although he had doubtless realized that that was where 
the power lay within the Republican Party and beyond. The Insiders 
needed Nixon to 

pacify the Taft people and had good reason to believe that a man as 
inordinately ambitious for power and wealth as was Nixon could be 
controlled easily enough. 

The Taft people should have realized that any man who was the 
protegd of the likes of Hoffman and Dewey was not a man they could 
trust . 

Taft himself had seen enough of Richard Nixon working behind the 
scenes to realize that it was not for nothing that he was nicknamed 
"Tricky Dick." Following the '52 convention he told friend and 
supporter Joseph Polowasky that Nixon was "a little man in a big 
hurry." He also noted that the ambitious Calif ornian had a "mean and 

vindictive streak, " a fact that many others in and out of the 
Republican Party were to discover from firsthand experience. Taft 
expressed the fervent hope that circumstances would never propel Nixon 
into the Presidency. 30 

After the cigar smoke lifted from the back rooms at the 1952 
convention, this question wafted out onto the breeze: How did Earl 
Warren, a man totally lacking in judicial experience, become Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court? The events leading to his appointment 
were described by Frank Hanighen in Human Events in January 1958: 

By 1952, Warren considered himself the boy most likely to succeed 
to the top nomination - but, Warren-like, took out insurance to cover 
his candidacy. The policy was proffered, at the outset of the National 
Convention in Chicago, by representatives of candidate Dwight D. 
Eisenhower; they feared the General could not win the nomination unless 
the convention accepted Ike delegations sent by five Southern states in 
opposition to Taft delegations chosen by regular party process. 

Their proposition to Warren was simple; he could have his choice 
of Secretary of Labor or Interior when Ike became President, if he only 
cast California's . . . convention votes for himself on the actual 
balloting for the nomination, but he was just to vote to seat the 
Southern Eisenhower men. Warren demurred; the quid pro quo was raised 
to the first Supreme Court 

vacancy, a lifetime job. He took it. California voted for the Ike 
delegations, and Taf t ' s hopes went glimmering. 

The payoff came in September 1953, with the untimely death of 
Chief Justice Fred Vinson. In a few days, Attorney General Herbert 
Brownell flew to Sacramento to tell Warren that, in , compliance with 
the promise, President Eisenhower would nominate him to be an Associate 
Justice of the Supreme Court, naming one of the sitting Associates to 
the presiding chair. No, said Warren firmly; the promise to him was for 
the first vacancy, and since the first vacancy was the Chief 
Justiceship, he intended to have it. 31 

Needless to relate, . Ike caved in and Warren became Chief 
Justice. The rest is tragedy. 

Nixon's campaign for the Vice Presidency had just begun when one 
of his six (or more) crises popped up. The New York Post hit the 
streets on September 18 with a front-page story headlined: "Secret Rich 
Men's Trust Fund Keeps Nixon In Style Beyond His Salary." The story was 
picked up and blown out of all proportion by pro-Adlai Stevenson 
newspapers. There was indeed such a fund. It had been put together by 
Pasadena lawyer Dana Smith, according to Smith, so that Nixon could 
continue campaigning and selling concepts of free enterprise between 
formal elections. Nixon could not possibly have done this on his salary 
of $12,000 per year plus $2,500 for expenses. It would have been 
difficult to find an elected official in Washington who did not have 
some such fund; Adlai Stevenson himself had two. Smith had been careful 
to limit individual contributions to the fund to $500, so as to avoid 
any inference that "wealthy industrialists" were buying themselves a 
Senator. However, the Washington Star later revealed that Nixon's 
office had interceded on behalf of Smith himself in a Justice 
Department case in which a company owned by Smith's family was seeking 
a tax rebate of more than half a million dollars. Moreover, the legal 
opinion from the firm hired by the Republican National Committee to 
research the propriety of the fund acknowl- 

edged that, after interviewing "a number of contributors," the 
researchers had learned that "in two instances the contributor had 
contacted Nixon to reguest his assistance in connection with matter 
pending before a department or agency of the government." 32 In total, 
the fund had, in a little less than two years, raised $18,000, which 
was used to finance speaking trips, send Christmas cards to Nixon's 
25, 000 campaign workers, defray expenses on mail that could not be 
franked, and pay for long-distance telephone calls. Nixon claimed that 
"not one cent . . . went to me for my personal use." But he had earlier 
admitted to columnist Peter Edson that had it not been for the fund, he 
could not have made the down payment on his house in Washington . 33 
The revelation of the fund was a powerful weapon against the 
Republicans, who were making a big issue of dishonesty and corruption 
in the Truman Administration. The Democratic politicians grabbed at it 
in desperate self-defense, ignoring the fact that most politicians had 
funds of the same sort. The public, which in general did not know that 
the economic facts of life in Washington necessitated outside support, 
was, by and large, extremely upset. Nixon tried to counter by blaming 
the charges on the Communists. From the observation platform of his 
campaign train he told audiences: 

You folks know the work that I did investigating Communists in 
the United States. Ever since I have done that work, the Communists, 
the left-wingers, have been fighting me with every smear that they have 
been able to. Even when I received the nomination for the vice- 
presidency, I want you folks to know and I'm going to reveal it today 
for the first time - I was warned that if I continued to attack the 
Communists and crooks in this government they would continue to smear 
me, and, believe me, you can expect that they will continue to do so. 
They started it yesterday - you saw it in the morning papers. They 
tried to say that I had taken the money, $16,000. 

What they didn't point out is this: that what I was doing was 
saving you money, rather than charging the expenses of my 
office, which were in excess of the amounts which were allowed by the 
taxpayers and allowed under the law, rather than taking that money. 

Rather than using the money, the taxpayers' monies for those 
purposes, what did I do? What I did was to have those expenses paid by 
the people back home who were interested in seeing that the information 
concerning what was going on in Washington was spread among the people 
of their state. 

I'll tell you what some of them do. They put their wives on the 
payroll, taking your money and using it for that purpose. And Pat Nixon 
has worked in my office night after night after night, and I can say 
this, and I say it proudly, she has never been on the government 
payroll since I have been in Washington, D.C. 

Point two: What else would you do? Do you want me to go on and do 
what some of these people are doing? Take fat legal fees on the side? 
During the time I've been in Washington - and I'm proud of this - I've 
never taken a legal fee, although as a lawyer I could legally but not 
ethically have done so, and I'm never going to in the future, because I 
think that's a violation of a trust which my office has .... 34 

Still there was no word from Eisenhower. Agonizing day followed 
agonizing day for Nixon as he waited for reassurance. Many key 
Republicans were calling for him to be dropped from the ticket. Dewey 
contacted Nixon and suggested that he bare his soul on national 
television. Out of this came the famous "Checkers Speech." 

Shortly before going on the air for the "Checkers Speech, " Nixon 
received a call from Dewey, bearing the bad news that most of Ike's 
advisers favored dumping Nixon. It seemed a hint for the candidate to 
resign on the air. The emotional strain was immense as Nixon went 
before the cameras with a hastily written speech scrawled on a note 
pad. The Senator delivered an emotion-laden speech that detailed the 
history of the fund, leaving out a point here and there, and adding 
that someone had also given his family a cocker spaniel, "Checkers," 
which his children loved, and they weren't going to give it back. Nixon 
closed his talk, not by resigning, but by 

putting the decision up to the Republican National Committee and asking 
the public to voice their sentiments to that body via telegrams. 

The speech was described by Stevenson supporters as "soap opera 
schmaltz and mawkish ooze, " but it was one of the most effective 
political speeches ever delivered. The Republicans received telegrams 
signed by more than one million citizens, overwhelmingly supporting 
Nixon. Nixon's political skin had been saved. That weekend he flew to 
Wheeling, West Virginia, where Eisenhower was on hand to greet him as 
"my boy . " 

Throughout the rest of the campaign Nixon worked tirelessly for 
the ticket, making as many as a dozen speeches a day. His formula was 
"K-l, C-3" - so-called for Korea, Communism, corruption, and costs. The 
Democrats were vulnerable on all items, and Nixon did not spare the 
rhetoric. He began on September 2, 1952, in a speech at Bangor, Maine, 
with the statement: 

We can anticipate charges of smear ... if the record itself 
smears, let it smear. If the dry rot of corruption and Communism which 
has eaten deep into our body politic during the past seven years can 
only be chopped out with a hatchet - then let's call for a hatchet. 

Some of his speeches showed the flair for alliteration that would 
help to make Spiro Agnew a household word nearly two decades later. On 
October 1, 1951, the candidate told assembled loyalists in Alexandria, 
Virginia : 

The Truman-Stevenson duet is simply designed to bamboozle the 
American people into continuing in power an Administration steeped in 
corruption, confusion, compromise and Communistcoddling. 

Nixon reminded the public of the vast millions of people who had 
disappeared behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains 

during the reign of the irascible man from Missouri. For this he 
justifiably blamed the Administration. The folks in Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania, heard this from the candidate on October 9: 

Because of recent attempts of Messrs. Truman, Acheson and 
Stevenson to falsify the record to cover up their failure to deal with 
the Communist conspiracy or to develop any program for meeting it in 
the future, I am going to take the case before the American people. 

In the same vein, Nixon reiterated the truth to an audience in Utica, 
New York, on October 18: 

I charge that the buried record will show that Mr. Truman and his 
associates, either through stupidity or political expedience, were 
primarily responsible for the unimpeded growth of the Communist 

conspiracy within the United States. I further charge that Mr. Truman, 
Dean Acheson and other Administration officials for political reasons 
covered up this Communist conspiracy and attempted to halt its 
exposure . 

Two of Nixon's favorite targets in these days were Truman's 
Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, and his policy of "containing" 
Communism. On October 16, Hoosiers in Evansville heard the candidate 

I say, make "containment" read "appeasement." Yet Adlai Stevenson 
- who carries a Ph.D. from Dean Acheson's cowardly college of Communist 
containment - approves this disastrous policy. 

In those days the Republicans were calling for victory over 
Communism, not proposing an "era of negotiation." Acheson (CFR) was a 
particularly juicy target, since he had surrounded himself with Alger 
Hiss, Owen Lattimore, John Stewart Service, Oliver Clubb, John Carter 
Vincent, Lauchlin Currie, and their like - all of them either Soviet 
spies or 

security risks. Undoubtedly it was just a coincidence, but Joseph 
Stalin had hired Acheson to be the Soviet Union's personal attorney in 
the United States prior to the official recognition of the Soviets by 
FDR. Just how Stalin happened to pick Acheson to serve as the 
Bolsheviks' barrister has not, to our knowledge, ever been explained. 
There is of course the possibility that he happened to be browsing 
through the Yellow Pages and found Acheson's name at the top of the 
page. During Acheson's tenure as their legal representative, the 
Communists made tremendous advances throughout the world. Acheson had 
also been responsible for elevating Hiss to a high position in the 
State Department, and even after Hiss had been convicted of perjury for 
lying about his spying for the Soviets, Acheson announced: "I will not 
turn my back on Alger Hiss." Since Nixon was deeply involved in the 
Hiss case, and since he and Acheson were such violent enemies, it is 
truly one of the great ironies of the Nixon Administration that Dean 
Acheson should be able to announce, as he did on his CBS Special with 
Walter Cronkite, that he is now a behind-the-scenes advisor to 
President Nixon. CFR politics makes strange bedfellows. Maybe Nixon too 
was browsing through the Yellow Pages. 

Journalist Clark Mollenhoff, until recently a member of Nixon's 
staff, disclosed: 

He [Kissinger] has his admirers and detractors. Among the former are 
former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who believes that our foreign 
policy is a mess, but that Henry Kissinger's handling of things in the 
White House is the only reason that the United States is not in more 
difficulties in the world. 35 

The anti-Communist rhetoric of Nixon in 1952 contributed to 
Eisenhower's landslide victory, as the victory-starved Elephant Team 
swept thirty-nine states and corralled 442 electoral votes. 

Purging The Party Of Patriots 

The Eisenhower . -Nixon team triumphed in the 1952 election by 
promising to stem Communist aggression abroad, root out Red 
infiltrators at home, and reverse the socialistic policies of the New 
Deal. The party platform promised: 

We shall eliminate from the State Department and from every 
Federal office, all, wherever they may be found, who share 
responsibility for the needless predicaments and perils in which we 
find ourselves. We shall also sever from the public payrolls the hordes 
of loafers, incompetents and unnecessary employees who clutter the 
administration of our foreign affairs .... The Government of the 
United States, under Republican leadership, will repudiate all 
commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta 
which aid Communist enslavements .... We shall again make liberty 
into a beacon light of hope that will penetrate the dark places .... 
We shall see to it that no treaty nor agreement with other countries 
deprives our citizens of the rights guaranteed them by the Federal 
Constitution .... There are no Communists in the Republican party . 
. . . We never compromise with Communism and we have to expose it and 
eliminate it in government and American life. A Republican President 
will appoint only persons of unguestioned loyalty .... Reduction of 
expenditures by the elimination of waste and extravagance so that the 
budget will be balanced and a general tax reduction can be made. 

But all this was not to be. A former assisstant to J. Edgar Hoover, Dan 
Smoot, has declared: 

If Stevenson had won in 1952, the growing anti-Communist, 


anti-socialist, anti-world government sentiment of the people would 
have continued to grow with accelerated speed, because it was apparent 
that Stevenson meant a continuation of Truman's policies. 

But millions thought their revolt had succeeded when Eisenhower 
and Nixon were elected. Eisenhower and Nixon, riding into office on the 
crest of a great wave in the swelling anti-communist, anti-socialist 
movement, destroyed the movement by giving it lip service, while 
vigorously supporting the very policies they were elected to oppose." 

Calling this "the most tragic irony in the history of America, " 
Smoot continued by saying: 

. . . The Eisenhower-Nixon team, elected in 1952 because it was 
considered strongly anti-communist, broke the back of the anti- 
communist movement in the United States! 

Given Ike's debt to FDR and the Insiders around him, this is not 
surprising. Exactly as George C. Marshall had been elevated to Chief of 
Staff, Ike was picked by the Roosevelt Administration in 1942 to be 
Allied Commander in North Africa, over the heads of 366 Army officers 
who outranked him. To contend that these were both coincidences is to 
insult all logic. How much Eisenhower owed to the Roosevelt 
Administration may be seen in the fact that he was only a Lieutenant 
Colonel at the outset of the war, and his career, like Marshall's, was 

considered a flop. In 1943, with the same backing that Marshall had, he 
became Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe. 

History has shown that the man who bears the actual title of 
President of the United States is not always the man who really wields 
the power. Behind Woodrow Wilson there was Colonel House. Behind FDR 
was Harry Hopkins. Those who really ran the United States while 
Eisenhower was on the putting green were Sidney Weinberg, Milton 
Eisenhower (CFR) , Sherman Adams (CFR) , John 

Foster Dulles (CFR) , and Paul Hoffman (CFR) , all lifelong devoted 
Leftists. This group came to be known as the "Palace Guard." 

The Hearst newspapers of July 6, 1953, over the byline of their 
Washington Bureau, said: "The man-behind-the-guns in the Eisenhower 
Administration is Sidney James Weinberg, Wall Street investment 
banker." Weinberg, until his recent death, was a partner in the 
international banking firm of Goldman, Sachs and Company. An article in 
the New Yorker magazine in 1956 pointed out: 

[Weinberg] has been a liaison between Wall Street and the 
White House ever since the inception of the New Deal. In the 
early '30's, he was among the few prominent men in big-money 
circles whom President Roosevelt could count on for support, 
and during both the 1932 and 1936 Presidential campaigns he 
was assistant treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. 2 

The same article guotes Business Week as calling Weinberg "an 
ambassador between financiers and politicians," and says 

that, "... though largely unknown to the man in any street but Wall, 
[Weinberg] is among the nation's most influential citizens. In his role 
as a power behind the throne, he probably comes as close as Bernard 
Baruch . "3 

Continuing, the New Yorker article observes: "There is hardly a 
ramification of the money and credit business in which Goldman, Sachs 
is not active." In FDR's administration Weinberg was one of the 
organizers of the Business Advisory Council, an unofficial arm of the 
Council on Foreign Relations created to get the approval of businessmen 
for the New Deal. 

A hallmark of the true Insider is that he is egually at home in 
either political party, since he knows that while the parties talk a 
slightly different language they are controlled by the same people. In 
1940, having supposedly concluded that a third term for FDR was 
unsound, "Weinberg popped up as a 
founder of and diligent fund-raiser for the Democrats for Willkie."4 

In 1951, Weinberg became a financial backer of Republican 
Advance, the ADA of the Republican party.' In 1952, Republican Advance, 
of which, it will be remembered, Richard Nixon was a charter member, 
changed its name to Citizens for Eisenhower-Nixon, and Weinberg became 
its treasurer. Was it very difficult for this super-Insider to 
infiltrate the Republican Party? Not at all. "The Republicans are not 
very bright," observed Weinberg. b The New Yorker article informed us: 

When Eisenhower was President-elect, he asked three trusted and 
well-informed agents - [Lucius] Clay [CFRI, Sherman Adams [CFR] and 
Herbert Brownell [CFR] - to draw up a list of recommendations for the 
cabinet he would have to appoint. These three men, in a sense, were 
acting as Eisenhower's advisors, but in this complex political age even 

advisors need advisors, and among those the trio turned to was, most 
notably, Weinberg. 7 

Goaded by his mysterious backers, Ike began purging Conservatives 
from the Republican Party instead of Communists from the government. 
First to feel the wrath of the "New" Republicans were the followers of 
Robert Taft. The Taf t-Conservative wing of the party had closed ranks 
behind the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket, thanks largely to the work of 
Nixon, despite the fact that following the convention Eisenhower's 
advisor and intimate, Paul Hoffman, had returned to Pasadena and held a 
press conference, at which he said, in substance, according to a story 
by Morrie Ryskind: "The GOP has finally rid itself of the Taft incubus, 
and our job now is to get rid of all the Taft adherents. "$ 

After helping to defeat Adlai Stevenson handily, Conservatives 
hoped that Eisenhower would appoint some Taft supporters to key cabinet 
positions, to implement the promises of the Republican Party platform. 
But the only 

Taft supporter to be appointed to the cabinet was Ezra Taft Benson, who 
served in the post of Secretary of Agriculture. Former Republican 
Congressman Howard Buffett explained how cleverly Conservatives were 
being purged in the Eisenhower Administration: 

During Ike's first weeks in office, a list of Taft Republicans to 
be purged was prepared at the White House. In this strategy the Modern 
[Liberal] Republicans did riot make Roosevelt's mistake in announcing 
their aims. Instead they laid their plans secretly and no public 
exposure of their tactics ever appeared. The freguent disappearance of 
conservative Republicans from public office and political influence in 
the following years was mute testimony to the effectiveness of this 
liguidation policy. 9 

It had not taken Bob Taft long to read the handwriting on the 
Eisenhower Administration's wall. In the White House on April 30, 1953, 
before a dozen Congressmen and others, Taft told Eisenhower: "You're 
taking us right down the same road that Truman traveled. It's a 
repudiation of everything we promised in the [ 1952] campaign. "r° 

Instead of building his administration around Conservatives and 
anti-Communists, Eisenhower continued the reign of the CFR members who 
had controlled the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations. CFR members 
holding key slots in the Eisenhower Administration included: r r 
President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower; Vice President of 
the United States, Richard M. Nixon; Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, Allen W. Dulles; 
Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles; 

Secretary of State, Christian A. Herter (succeeding John Foster 
Dulles) ; 

Secretary of the Treasury, Robert B. Anderson; Secretary of the Navy, 
Thomas S. Gates; 

Secretary of Labor, James P. Mitchell; 
Secretary of Commerce, Lewis L. Strauss; 

Under Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
Nelson A. Rockefeller; 

Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, 
Gordon Gray; 

Special Assistant to the President, James R. Killian Jr.; 

Staff Secretary to the President, Brig. Gen. A.J. Goodpaster, 

Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Douglas Dillon; 

Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Robert 

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Livingston T. 

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Joseph C. 

Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization 
Affairs, Francis 0. Wilcox; 

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Henry Cabot Lodge; 

Atomic Energy Commission, John A. McCone; and 

U.S. Representative on Disarmament, James J. Wadsworth. 

The Republican Party platform of 1952 had stated: 

We shall eliminate from the State Department and from every 

Federal office, all, wherever they may be found, who share 
responsibility for the needless predicaments and perils in which 
we find ourselves . 

The "Palace Guard" carried this plank out - and buried it. Instead of 
eliminating those in the State Department responsible for Yalta, China, 
and other tragic disasters, the Eisenhower Administration promoted to 
Secretary of State one of the individuals who were most responsible, 
John Foster Dulles. Dulles had been a protege of Colonel House and was 
a founder of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was also a protege of 
Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State 

on whose record of successive losses for America the Republicans had 
based much of their campaign against the Democrats. Senator William 
Jenner of Indiana wrote: "Mr. Dulles is Mr. Acheson's identical twin." 
Dulles had become officially a right-hand man of Acheson in 1950, and 
was so completely a part of the Truman foreign policy menagerie that he 
no longer gave his address to Who's Who in America as 48 Wall Street, 
New York, where his law office was, but as "Department of State, 
Washington . " 

Dulles was a strange individual to oversee the promised clean-up 
of the State Department. The appointment of Dulles as Secretary of 
State appeared strange and disillusioning even to William F. Buckley 
Jr., who wrote in Human Events of April 18, 1953: 

The principal reason why the Senate and the people should have no 
confidence in Dulles on matters relating to loyalty and security is his 
reversal, in February, of the Civil Service Loyalty Board's findings 
that a "reasonable doubt" does indeed exist as to John Carter Vincent's 
loyalty. Not only did Dulles overrule this highly cautious board, he 
also exonerated Vincent on the lesser, looser, laxer score by declaring 
that neither is there "reasonable doubt" that Vincent is a security 
risk. Now, the evidence against Vincent, garnered from a study of his 
career, is very persuasive .... 

But even apart from Vincent's activities and associations in 
China, there is the testimony of Louis Budenz, who asserts that he knew 
Vincent to be a member of the Communist Party . . . .Mr. Dulles in 
effect declared that there is no reasonable doubt that Louis Budenz is 
a liar. And this in spite of the fact that on the basis of thousands of 
pages of secret testimony, corroborating wherever possible, the FBI 
gives Budenz the highest reliability rating . . . .Mr. Dulles dealt 
the federal security program .... an Achesonian blow. 

It was John Foster Dulles, then, who was appointed by Ike, or for 
Ike, to clean the security risks out of the State Department and to put 
a termination to the "America last" 

CFR foreign policy, as had been promised in the 1952 Republican Party 
platform. It has been observed of Dulles that he always said the right 
thing and always did the wrong one. In speeches and public statements, 
Dulles was always the proponent of the real American position, the man 
who announced the policies and intentions which the American people 
wanted to hear and which they recognized as right. The American people 
for the most part were not aware that he did just the opposite of what 
he proclaimed. But that, one must remember, is the way the Insiders 
operate . 

During World War II Dulles was appointed chairman of the Federal 
Council of Churches' Inter-Church Commission to Study the Bases of the 
Just and Durable Peace. In early March of 1942, that organization held 
a conference at Delaware, Ohio. Chairman John Foster Dulles submitted 
the report, which had been approved by the members of his committee. It 
included the following recommendations: 

One, ultimately a world government of delegated powers; 

Two, complete abandonment of United States isolationism; 

Three, strong, immediate limitations on national sovereignty; 

Four, international control of all armies and navies; 

Five, a universal system of money; 

Six, world-wide freedom of immigration; 

Seven, progressive elimination of all tariff and quota 
restrictions on world trade; 

Eight, a democratically controlled international bank. 

Chairman Dulles, an in-law of the Rockefellers and long-time 
attorney for the international bankers, placed on the United States 
much of the blame for the Second World War. His report said: 

It should be a matter of shame and humiliation to us that 

actually the influences shaping the world have largely been 
irresponsible forces. The natural wealth of the world is not evenly 
distributed. Accordingly, the possession of such natural resources . . 
. is a grant to be discharged in the general interest. 

Time magazine of March 16, 1942, which carried under Dulles' 
picture the caption, "Shame on U.S.," stated: 

Some of the conference's economic opinions are almost as 
sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. 
It held that a "new order of economic life is both imminent and 
imperative" - a new order that is sure to come either "through 
voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through 
explosive political revolution." Without condemning the profit motive 
as such, it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding 
war, demagogues and dictators, "mass unemployment, widespread 
dispossession from homes and farms, destitution, lack of opportunity 
for youth and of security for old age." Instead, "the church must 
demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare . . . . " 

Dulles was a prominent and much publicized member of the first 
meeting of the World Council of Churches, held in Amsterdam in 1948, at 
which that body officially declared capitalism to be just as evil as 
Communism. 12 Dulles neither protested nor disavowed the resolution. 

An idea of what John Foster Dulles had in mind in his pursuit of 
American foreign policy was given in U.S. News & World Report, December 
28, 1956, where Dulles said: "It is very important that this satellite 
situation should develop in a way that the Soviet Union is surrounded 
by friendly countries." Commenting upon an earlier similar statement, 
Frank Meyer, now of National Review magazine, wrote: 

Surely if the administration had the faintest sense of reality 
about the character of the struggle, the tightest possible encirclement 
of the Soviet Union by the most hostile peoples would be one of our 
first aims. What is Secretary Dulles saying? That any friends we have 
in the periphery of the Soviet empire are to be 

sacrificed to the Russian desire for captive neighbors? How does this 
differ from the policy of Yalta, the sellout of Poland in 1945? 

You will recall that during the 1952 campaign, Nixon had called 
the Truman-Acheson policy of "containment" of Communism "cowardly." 
Under Dulles the Eisenhower Administration did not repudiate the Yalta 
agreements as promised in the platform, but instead repudiated any 
repudiation of the agreements. Since Dulles was a founder of 'the 
Council on Foreign Relations it is not surprising that he was a strong 
supporter of Atlantic Union, which advocates changing NATO from a 
defense alliance into a complete political union. 13 The San Francisco 
Examiner of May 4, 1956, called Dulles' program "world government in 
disguise," and said that Eisenhower "fully supports the 'Dulles plan.' 

Despite the fact that Nixon had achieved great political mileage 
out of horsewhipping Dean Acheson for his, at best, badly mistaken 
policies towards Communism, he guickly gravitated toward Acheson 's 
protege, Dulles. Writing in Look magazine, Earl Mazo was to note: 

Only a few have known that the relationship between Nixon and 
Dulles was perhaps the warmest in the Administration .... Dulles was 
Nixon's behind the scenes adviser in many cases, especially during 
Eisenhower's illness. 

It is not surprising that Nixon would feel an affinity for Dulles. Both 
possessed the ability to project a public image which ran guite counter 
to their actions. But sophisticated Washington watchers must have 
laughed to see the supposedly militant anti-Communist Nixon cozy up to 
Acheson's sidekick, Dulles. Acheson, in 1971 an unofficial Nixon 
adviser, was Nixon's favorite target in 1952, with statements like 
this : 

Stevenson himself hasn't even backbone training, for he is a 
graduate of Dean Acheson's spineless school of diplomacy which cost the 
free world six hundred million former allies in the past seven years of 
Trumanism. la 

Four days later Nixon again linked Stevenson with Acheson, the 
man who said he would not turn his back on Alger Hiss after Hiss was 
convicted of perjury regarding his activities in spying for the USSR: 
"[Stevenson's] entire record shows that he is incurably afflicted with 
Acheson color-blindness - a form of pinkeye - toward the Red threat." 1 

While campaigning for the Presidency in 1952, Ike told a 
Milwaukee audience that Communism had: 

. . . insinuated itself into our schools . . . and our government 
itself. What did this contamination into government mean? It meant 
contamination to some degree of virtually every section of our 
government .... We have all had enough, I believe, of those who have 
sneered at the warnings of men trying to drive Communists from high 
places - but who themselves have never had the sense or the stamina to 
take after the Communists themselves .... 

Eisenhower's Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, started to 
expose some of the Communist influence in the Truman Administration. 
One week after Brownell 's public revelation about Communist spy Harry 
Dexter White in 1953, he was silenced. Brownell got the picture. The 
exposures ceased. 

After promising to investigate the Communists in "every 
department," Eisenhower let stand an order issued by Truman in 1947, 
prohibiting access by Congress to government files on the loyalty of 
personnel. Another 1948 directive by Truman forbidding government 
officials to give information to Congressional committees without White 
House permission was also left standing by Eisenhower. And on Friday, 
May 17, 1954, Eisenhower issued an order 

forbidding government departments to provide any information to 
investigating committees, which went far beyond the Truman "gag" rule. 
Chairman Francis Walter of the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities called the Eisenhower Executive Order "incredibly stupid." 
16 No one, apparently, considered that from the standpoint of the 
Insiders the move was incredibly smart. Congressional committees were 
now, for all practical purposes, out of the business of investigating 
Communists and other subversives in the government - in complete 
repudiation of Eisenhower's campaign promises. This was also a complete 
repudiation of the idea that the American public has the right to know 
what its government is doing. As early as October 18, 1953, after 
campaigning on promises to clean the Communists out of the government, 
Eisenhower told a news conference that he hoped the whole security 
issue of Communists in government would be "a matter of history and 
memory by the time the next election comes around." He deplored the 
fear of Communism in government and "the suspicion on the part of the 
American people that their government services are weak in this 
regard. " 17 

The "great crusade" that Eisenhower during his campaign had 
promised to lead turned out to be a pied piper's pipe dream. The 
"Communist threat" disappeared under Eisenhower just as the "missile 
gap" did right after John F. Kennedy's election. Eisenhower did, 
however, lead one "crusade": the crusade to "get" Senator Joseph 
McCarthy of Wisconsin. Human Events stated: 

It is now obvious the Administration, striving desperately to 
down Senator McCarthy, has embarked upon a series of moves which, if 
successful, will take the nation a long way toward dictatorial 
government. These moves are depicted as an effort of President 
Eisenhower to shield himself from a McCarthy "domination" of the 
Republican party which, of course, is sheer moonshine. Back of these 
moves are the leftwing groups that have 

successfully penetrated the Republican party and who see in Senator 
McCarthy a chance to build an omnipotent executive who will have the 
power to hasten the establishment of a Socialist state in America. 1 $ 

McCarthy had been tolerated during the 1952 campaign, even though 
Eisenhower's backers despised him, because at that time the monumental 
smear job against him had been largely ineffective. In 1952, McCarthy 
had more supporters than detractors. In the years since then little has 
been said in defense of McCarthy, but the Liberal Establishment has 
continued to defame him to such a point that today there is hardly an 
American who does not believe that the Wisconsin Senator made 
outlandish and unprovable charges. 

As it became obvious that Acheson's old subordinate, John Foster 
Dulles, had no intention of carrying out the campaign promises of 
Eisenhower and Nixon to clean out the State Department, McCarthy began 
to turn the heat on the Eisenhower administration. The ex-Marine was 
proving to be disturbingly nonpartisan on the Communist infiltration 
issue. Nixon was assigned to try to divert McCarthy onto other issues. 

The Vice President had been a close friend of McCarthy's, and 
McCarthy apparently trusted Nixon. For a while he toned down his 
attacks. Nixon is credited with persuading McCarthy to call off his 
threat to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency, which the Dulles 
brothers had been primarily responsible for founding. Nixon also talked 
McCarthy into firing J.B. Matthews as his chief investigator, after 
Matthews published a magazine article thoroughly documenting the depth 
of penetration by Communists of religious bodies, including the 
National Council of Churches, and the success with which the Communists 
had enticed tens of thousands of non-Communist, liberal clergymen into 
joining their fronts. McCarthy was also upset with the Eisenhower 
Administration's position on relaxing aid and 

trade restrictions against the Iron Curtain countries. The Wisconsin 
Senator had written a scathing letter to Eisenhower on the subject, but 
Nixon persuaded McCarthy to let him intercept the letter before it 
reached the President. 

The Vice President attempted to divert McCarthy's energies to 
other matters. He told the Wisconsin Senator: "You should not be known 
as a one-shot Senator." 19 After visiting McCarthy in Florida, Nixon 
told reporters that McCarthy would turn his attention to Democratic 
corruption and away from the Communist issue. McCarthy apparently 
decided that whatever promises had been made to him that the Eisenhower 
administration would slowly and without fanfare get around to the 
"subversion in government" issue were not going to be kept. He 
denounced as a lie Nixon's statement to the press that McCarthy would 
lay off the Communism issue. 

When it became obvious to the "Palace Guard" that Nixon could no 
longer control McCarthy, a way had to be found to engineer the 
Senator's downfall. The three most important men in arranging the 
destruction of McCarthy were William Rogers, then Assistant Attorney 
General and now Secretary of State; Henry Cabot Lodge, currently 
Nixon's ambassador to the Vatican; and Ford Foundation official Paul 
Hoffman. Fulton Lewis Jr. said: 

One man above all others in the White House family hated Joe 
McCarthy, and that man was Paul G. Hoffman, the President's confidante 
whom he named to the United Nations .... Paul Hoffman, in his 
hatred, helped to pay for the lawyers who drew up the censure charges 
which Senator Flanders of Vermont lodged against Senator McCarthy, and 
which finally - though proven to be false - resulted in McCarthy's 
censure. [Hoffman was the darling of the United World Federalists, of 
whom Flanders was one.] 

On July 19th of last year, Senator Flanders openly admitted this 
act on the floor of the United States Senate, at that time he publicly 
apologized to Senator McCarthy for what he had done. 

He said he wished the whole thing could be forgotten, but he did admit 
that Mr. Hoffman contributed $1,000 for the drafting of those false 
charges . 

Hoffman, who hated Taft, McCarthy and all the antiCommunists with 
a passion, you will remember, married a Communist. [Hoffman's wife is 
Anna Rosenberg, who has been the public relations brains behind Nelson 
Rockefeller's political career.] What the "Palace Guard" was attempting 
to do was to make the White House into a Bergen with only Charlie 
McCarthys in Congress, not Joe McCarthys. 2° 

In his article for Colliers magazine, "How Ike Saved the 
Republican Party, " Hoffman had made it plain that McCarthy and the 
anti-Communists were to be purged from the party. He said: 

[McCarthy and his group were] creating the illusion both at home 
and abroad that the Republican party was anti-Communist and nothing 
else, that it had lost its interest in the guest for peace abroad and 
for human welfare at home. Such a negative image of the Republican 
party could prove disastrous; if the Republican party were to win, it 
had to be for something. 

The reason the Eisenhower Administration was so eager to get 
McCarthy was not merely that he was exposing subversives who had 
infiltrated the government bureaucracy, but that following the trail of 
the lower echelon conspirators had led him to start knocking at the 
doors of the upper-level conspirators of the so-called "legitimate 
world." When McCarthy began making the connection between the 
Communists and the penthouse conspirators above them, his career was 
doomed. The same was true of the Reece Committee, which had been 
investigating foundations until the probe was killed on orders from 
Eisenhower. Whenever any government investigation gets above the level 
of exposing the gutter revolutionaries and begins following the trail 
to the "legitimate world," the investigation is always guashed. 

Although the issue of Communist infiltration of government, which 
the Republicans had used to get elected in 1952, was buried as soon as 
they assumed office (and McCarthy with it, when he attempted to force 
the Republicans to carry out their campaign promises), it was 
resurrected for the 1954 off-year elections. Nixon was used again, as 
he had been in 1952, as a Judas goat, to lead naive anti-Communist 
sheep into the "New" Republicans' ideological slaughterhouse. This time 
Nixon claimed that the Eisenhower Administration had rooted the Reds 
out of government. In Omaha on September 20, 1954, Nixon stated: 

[The Eisenhower Administration is] kicking Communists, fellow 
travelers, and bad security risks out of the federal government by the 
thousands. The Communist conspiracy is being smashed to bits by this 
administration .... Previous Democratic administrations 
underestimated the Communist danger at home and ignored it. They 
covered up rather than cleaned up. 

A week later at New Bedford, Massachusetts, Nixon again claimed: "We 
have driven the Communists, the f ellowtravelers, and the security risks 
out of government by the thousands." Soon, Nixon began playing the 
numbers game as he toured the country campaigning for Republican office 

seekers. The number of ousted "security risks" escalated from 1,456 to 
2,200 to 2,429 to 2,486, and then climaxed at 6,926. Using this figure, 
Nixon told an audience in Rock Island, Illinois, on October 21: 

The President's security risk program resulted in 6,926 
individuals removed from the federal service .... The great majority 
of these individuals were inherited largely from the Truman regime . . 
. . Included in this number were individuals who were members of the 
Communist Party and Communist controlled organizations . 21 

These individuals numbered 1,743, according to Nixon. 

The Vice President went so far as to assert November 1, in 
Denver, Colorado, that "96 per cent of the 6,926 Communists, fellow 
travelers, sex perverts, people with criminal records, dope addicts, 
drunks, and other security risks removed under the Eisenhower security 
program were hired by the Truman administration." 

Fifteen months later the Eisenhower-appointed Civil Service 
Chairman Philip Young informed a Senate committee that a subsequent 
survey showed that 41.2 percent of the dismissed or resigned security 
risks actually had been hired after Eisenhower had taken over the 
executive department from the Democrats. 22 Since Eisenhower had been 
in office for so short a time, it would appear that things were getting 
worse under Ike than they had been under Truman. Young had earlier 
testified that he knew of no single government employee who had been 
fired by the Eisenhower Administration for being a Communist or fellow 
traveler! During Truman's last full year, the administration fired 
21,626 for cause. Nixon's claims were clearly fraudulent, but they did 
make for exciting campaign rhetoric. His boss had made investigation of 
Communist penetration in government a dead letter by continuing 
Truman's gag rule. 

By the 1956 campaign Nixon was burying the issue entirely. On 
October 17, Nixon told an audience at Cornell University, according to 
the Associated Press, that investigations of Communist activities of 
the kind formerly conducted by McCarthy were no longer needed. He gave 
credit to the Eisenhower Administration's security policies for taking 
"this issue . . . out of the political arena. "23 In a sense he was 
telling the truth. The issue had been taken out of the political arena. 
The Democrats certainly weren't going to bring it up if the Republicans 
didn't. Yet seventeen days earlier, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Nixon 
had asserted that the GOP would never do what it soon did. According to 
the Vice President: 

We will never underestimate or pooh-pooh the Communist danger, 
either abroad or in the United States of America. 

In a political campaign, it is tempting to tell the American 
people that we can get rid of our draft, cut our defenses, find a cut- 
rate way to meet our international obligations, but American security 
must come before any political ambitions. 24 

What made Nixon's burial of the internal subversion issue all the 
more ironic was his earlier claim that the Democrats had buried it, as 
in this September 21, 1948 statement: "The full story of Communist 
espionage will not be told until we get a Republican President who is 
not afraid of skeletons in the closet. "25 Nixon advanced his own career 
with statements like the following, made shortly before he ran for the 
Senate : 

Because they treated Communist infiltration into our American 
institutions like any ordinary petty political scandal, the [Truman] 
Administration officials responsible for this failure to act against 
the Communist conspiracy rendered the greatest possible disservice to 
the people of this nation. 26 

This was made all the more significant because Elizabeth Bentley, 
who had served as a courier for the Communist party, had testified that 
of the many Communist cells in the U.S. government, only two, the 
Silvermaster and Perlo cells, had been partially uncovered. It should 
be duly noted that Nixon had full knowledge of the depth and extent of 
Communist penetration of the government from his activities on the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Hiss case. To tell 
the American public that the issue was dead can only be described as 
deceitful, although it doubtless enhanced his stock among the Insiders, 
to whom he was catering in every possible way. 

Another extremely important issue that Nixon used to sabotage 
Conservatives and anti-Communists was the Bricker Amendment. The 
Bricker Amendment was framed by Ohio Senator John Bricker, who was 
concerned that treaties 

entered into by the President superseded the Constitution. His argument 
was based on a statement made by John Foster Dulles before the American 
Bar Association in Louisville in April 1952. Dulles had discussed the 
status of treaties in international law and under the Constitution. He 
pointed out that the Constitution specifically says (Article VI) that 
approved treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land." He added that 
such treaties "are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for 
congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the 
Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. "27 

The Bricker Amendment forbade the President to enter into any 
treaty that would supersede the Constitution of the United States and 
deny to any citizen the rights guaranteed by it. One would assume that 
no elected official could oppose the Bricker Amendment. The Amendment 
was specifically aimed at the United Nations Charter, which is a 
treaty. Bricker feared we were headed for "socialism by treaty" through 
the United Nations?8 Under the Bricker Amendment, it would be 
impossible to surrender our sovereignty to a world government by 
treaty. Naturally, the Amendment was anathema to all the world 
government clan, the CFR in particular. It was denounced as an attempt 
to undermine the treaty-making power of the President - which it was, 
assuming that the President sought to enter into a treaty that would 
violate the Constitutional rights of Americans. Eisenhower fought the 
Bricker Amendment bitterly right down to its hairline defeat on the 
Senate floor, denouncing its supporters as "nuts and crackpots." The 
man responsible for the defeat of the Bricker Amendment was Richard M. 
Nixon . 

While in the Senate, Nixon had favored the Amendment, but as a 
hatchetman for the Eisenhower Administration, he worked for the defeat 
of this crucially important bill. White House correspondent William 
Costello wrote: 

The Bricker amendment . . . called for Nixon's best talents. 
The White House set itself adamantly against the amendment's 
proposed limitation on the President's treaty-making powers, and 
it was Nixon who brought the report that sentiment both in and 
out of Congress was more sympathetic to Bricker than the 
President had supposed. The Vice President, after first proposing 
compromise, found himself in loyalty to the White House stalling, 

placating, instructing, and negotiating and finally joined Eisen. 
hower in opposition to Bricker's demand. 29 

The Bricker Amendment lost in the Senate by a single vote. Some 
day Americans may realize how crucial that betrayal of the Constitution 
was . 

The Vice President made a convincing "yes man" for the 
Eisenhower-Dulles version of the Truman-Acheson appeasement of the 
Communist program. Nixon's support of such anti-anti-Communist programs 
helped drown resistance to them. 

On March 17, 1960, Eisenhower told Los Angeles Times reporter Don 
Shannon: "So far as I know, there has never been a specific difference 
in our points of view on any important problems in seven years." 

Ultra-Liberal columnist Marguis Childs (CFR) guoted Nixon as 
stating: "My beliefs are very close, as it has turned out, to the 
philosophy of the Eisenhower Administration on both foreign and 
domestic policy." Mr. Childs added: "In embracing the Eisenhower 
philosophy and the 'new Republicanism, ' Nixon has gone against his own 
conservative voting record when he was in the Senate and House. "3° 
Taking the Vice President at his word, we see that he supported the 
Eisenhower policies of: 

1. Keeping Chiang Kai-shek's troops bottled up on Formosa while 
settling for an armistice in Korea; 

2. Surrendering North Vietnam to Ho chi Minh by refusing to 
permit an air strike against the Communist armies surrounding the 
French at Dien Bien Phu; 

3. Repudiating the platform promise to repudiate the Yalta 

4. Turning the Suez Canal over to the Communists; 

5. Betraying our promise to help the Hungarians if they revolted; 

6. Inviting Khrushchev, the Butcher of Budapest, to visit America 
just after he had finished slaughtering f reedomseeking Hungarians; 

7. Accepting as a policy the Communists' proposal for "peaceful 
co-existence, " which by their own admission means conguering the world 
by subversion and civil wars; and 

8. Allowing a Communist bastion to be established ninety miles 
from our shore. 

All of these events were critical, with long-term implications 
that still affect us today. 

In order to ingratiate himself with the International Left, Nixon 
did such things as escort the notorious Indonesian Communist Achmed 
Sukarno around the capital and introduce him to the Senate as the 
George Washington of Indonesia. He did the same for Fidel Castro. 
Although our military intelligence, our ambassadors to Cuba and Mexico, 
and all of South America had known for years that Castro was a 
Communist and had tried to so inform our government, Nixon did his best 
to try to keep up the pretense that Castro was just another of those 
George Washingtons. On April 18, 1959, Vice President Nixon stated: 
" [The] Cuban people themselves will not tolerate a Communist government 
or a Communist takeover. "3' Five days later, in an address to newspaper 
editors, he remarked: 

I mentioned Dr. Castro's visit, and I am looking forward to the 
opportunity of seeing him tomorrow in my office .... 

No one can come to the United States, no one can talk to American 
audiences, no one can talk to the officials of our 
government, as Dr. Castro will have, without going back 

convinced that the U.S. government and people share whole- 
heartedly the aspirations of the people of Latin America for peaceful 
existence, for Democratic freedom, for economic progress, and for the 
strengthening of the institutions of representative government. 32 

Nixon vocally supported extending foreign aid to Communist Poland 
and the Cultural Exchange Program, despite the fact that J. Edgar 
Hoover had warned that the latter was a ruse for smuggling spies into 
the country. Nixon proved to be an excellent tranguilizer for 
Conservative Republicans while Eisenhower and the "Palace Guard" tugged 
and hauled the party Leftward. 

One of the major themes of the 1952 Eisenhower-Nixon campaign had 
been a pledge to reverse the onrushing movement towards socialism. In 
those days Republicans used the word "socialism" to describe the 
program of the Democrats. Today, since Eisenhower and Nixon adopted the 
Democrats' programs, the word is as thoroughly taboo among Republicans 
as it is among Democrats. Pollster Samuel Lubell observes that "to 
solidify itself permanently in American life the New Deal needed at 
least one Republican victory . . . [which would] endorse much of the 
New Deal through the simple device of leaving things untouched." That 
is exactly what the Eisenhower Administration did. As M. Stanton Evans, 
editor of the Indianapolis Star, has written: 

One result of this was to alienate from the party the new 
majority which had temporarily surfaced in 1952: the taxpayers and 
homeowners who looked to the Republicans for relief, and who were 
rudely disappointed as augmented federal spending and taxes shifted the 
cost of government more heavily on them than before. In conseguence the 
GOP emerged from the White House with little to show for its eight 
years' occupancy: a party base more shrunken than ever, repeated 
defeats in the battles for Congress, and no strategy for reversing 
things . 33 

In 1950, middle-class Americans paid thirty-three percent of 
the total tax burden. By 1958, they found themselves paying forty-seven 
percent of it. By the end of Ike's career the federal government owned 
three million more acres of land in the continental United States than 
it had when he was inaugurated. 34 During the Eisenhower years federal 
employment continued to climb and bureaus to expand. While Ike was 
getting publicity for paring personnel in one place, he was guietly 
adding more in other places, resulting in large net gains in federal 
employment - breaking yet another of his campaign pledges. Eisenhower's 
proposed budget for 1957-58 called for domestic spending of $31 
billion, against the highest figure under Truman, who had the Korean 
War to finance, of $20 billion. 3s 

Under Eisenhower the Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
was created, a department which Republicans and Conservative Democrats 
had successfully kept the ADA crowd from creating under either 
Roosevelt or Truman. HEW has now grown into the most expensive 
department in the federal government . 

During the eight years of the Eisenhower Administration the 
national debt increased by almost $27 billion. Truman, in seven 
budgets, had increased the national debt by only $51/z billion, in 
spite of the fact that he had a full-blown Korean War to deal with. In 
April 1957, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the 
Socialist Party ticket, stated: "The United States is making greater 

strides towards socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt." 

Result of all this; the Republican party was swept under in the 
1958 elections, sustaining a defeat second only to the disaster of 1936 
in modern Republican history. 

Nixon had been, as Paul Hoffman said, a faithful servant of the 
Eisenhower Administration. His job had been to quash any revolt by the 
rank and file against Ike's socialism by making strong public 
statements, just as Vice President Agnew has done for Nixon. When he 
was out speechifying, Nixon sounded 

as hard-core as ever. During his campaigning in 1954, he was still 
castigating the Democratic program as socialism. "A Democratic 
victory," he said, "will mean a sharp turn to the left, back down the 
road to socialism." He told a group of the faithful in Van Nuys, 
California: "When the Eisenhower Administration came to Washington on 
January 20, 1953, we found in the files a virtual blueprint for 
socializing America." 37 The Democratic plans, he stated, "call for 
socialized medicine, socialized housing, socialized agriculture, 
socialized water and power and perhaps most disturbing of all, 
socialization of America's greatest source of power, atomic energy." 
Washington wags have since claimed that Nixon must have dusted off the 
old blueprint the Administration found in 1953 and reissued it as the 
"New Federalism."* 

The Vice President really became carried away one night and 
blurted out this statement: "... speaking for a unanimous Supreme 
Court, a great Republican Chief Justice, Earl Warren, has ordered an 
end to racial segregation in the nation's public schools. "38 

But pacifying grass-roots Republicans with Conservative rhetoric 
was not Nixon's only job in the Eisenhower Administration. He worked 
behind the scenes, pushing and shoving recalcitrant Republican 
Congressmen and Senators into supporting the "New Republicanism" of Ike 
and his "Palace Guard." 

The Council on Foreign Relations and the "Palace Guard" had done 
their job well. During the entire Eisenhower Administration there was 
no interruption of "America last" policies abroad and the welfare state 
at home. The Insiders had proved that they could not only control the 
selection of Republican Presidential candidates, but could actually 
control a Republican administration. 

'It later turned out, when reporters quizzed Nixon's press secretary 
about the "blueprint," that it was a figure of speech and the Vice 
President was merely referring to the Democrats' general philosophy and 
proposals . 

In one respect the Eisenhower Administration was a monumental 
success: it was undeniably successful at purging Conservatives from the 
party. Ike's "confidante," Paul Hoffman in his October 1956 article in 
Colliers, laid out in the very bluntest terms the strategy for purging 
Conservatives from the Republican party. On February 16, 195 '7, Human 
Events reported that Hoffman claimed that the White House had suggested 
the idea of the article and that he "wrote a draft and submitted it to 
members of the Palace Guard. The latter returned it to him, saying it 
was not strong enough and urging him to name names. Hoffman acceded to 
this request and the Colliers piece appeared in print in a new and 
tougher version, with the names." Hoffman admitted that, when 
Eisenhower was elected, only "thirty percent of the local and county 
leaders of the party and less than twenty percent of the Congressmen 
and Senators" within the Republican Party supported Eisenhower's 

Liberal foreign and domestic policies. Eisenhower was upset, Hoffman 
said, because even as leader of the ticket he could not control all 
Republicans. He stated: 

What Eisenhower did not grasp was the entrenched power of some of 
the greater figures on Capitol Hill and how deep and firm were the 
rusty, old-fashioned convictions in which they believed. 

If you wanted to make progress within the new Republican establishment, 
you had to sell out and go Liberal. Hoffman guoted Charles Halleck as 
shaking his head and saying: "I had to swallow hard two or three times 
because the boss believes in things I don't, but he's the boss .... 
" Halleck soon got the picture. "You have to go along to get along," as 
the politicians say. Hoffman wrote: "By now, I should add, Charlie 
Halleck has turned out to be a tower of strength for the Eisenhower 
program . . . . " 

Hoffman admitted in the Colliers article that during the 
Eisenhower regime Conservative Republicans were moved out and Liberals 
in. He said: 

Forty-two new state chairmen of the Republican party are new, 
solid, Eisenhower men. Eighty-five of the one hundred forty-six members 
of the national committee in 1952, have been replaced by new faces. In 
state after state the young men and women [many of them Democrats] 
first brought into politics through the Citizens for Eisenhower have 
begun to occupy commanding posts in the regular structure. There are, 
to be sure, areas where the old guard still retains its control .... 
But by and large, the nature of the party in 1956, is almost totally 
different from what it was in 1952 - either in personalities, or in 
philosophy of Republican stalwarts. We have come to accept Eisenhower 
leadership wholeheartedly. 

Hoffman continued: 

Eisenhower's overriding political directive to Leonard Hall, our 
national chairman, is to find young people, new people of the Citizens 
for Eisenhower stripe and bring them into the organization. This fall, 
in New York and Wisconsin, bitter intra-party fights for the Republican 
Senatorial nomination in these great states have been won by two 
distinguished liberals, [Communist Party protege] Jacob Javits and 
Alexander Wiley - both of them 100% Eisenhower men - over opposition 
from the right wing. 

"This is not to say that the battle to remake the Republican 
Party is entirely won," wrote Hoffman. There still remains . . . the 
Senate, where years of power built up men whose entrenched positions 
still let them resist the philosophy of the Twentieth Century, " he 
said. Then Hoffman continued: 

In the Senate, there are too many Republican Senators claiming 
the label Republican who embrace none or very little of the Eisenhower 
program and philosophy. 

This group can be divided into two splinters. One splinter 
contains men like Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, Senator William 
Jenner of Indiana, Senator Herman Welker of Idaho, Senator George 
Malone of Nevada, who can be called the unappeasables . I shall not try 
to stigmatize the dangerous 

thinking and reckless conduct of these men except to say that, in my 
opinion, they have little place in the new Republican party. 

The other splinter within the dissident third [the conservative, 
anti-Communist one-third] consists of what I consider the "faint-hope" 
group: men like Senator Henry Dworshak of Idaho, Senator Andrew 
Schoeppel of Kansas, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. This splinter 
has been unable to demonstrate, conclusively and permanently, that it 
accepts the modern America with its needs of social security or 
balanced labormanagement relations, or government partnership and 
guardianship of our complex economy. Nor, being still wedded to the 
old-fashioned idea of f ortress-America-isolated-in-space, can it accept 
America's role as the chief champion of peace and decency in active 
international relations. 

All of the Senators except Goldwater soon met their political Waterloo. 
Is it rational to believe that this article would have appeared in 
Colliers magazine without the prior approval of Eisenhower and the 
"Palace Guard?" Could Hoffman's message have been any clearer? There is 
no room in the "modern" Republican Party for Conservatives. All the 
"modern" Republicans want from Conservatives is their vote on election 
day . 

In the same article, however, Hoffman did have praise for one 
Republican : 

In the Senate, from the very beginning, the President's program 
has had the ungualified and vigorous support of Vice President Nixon. 
Some liberal Republicans are still unconvinced as to the Vice 
President's attitude, holding that he had supported the program only 
out of personal loyalty to the President, and that his original ultra- 
conservative views are unchanged. Based on what Nixon has said both 
publicly and privately, it is my view that he genuinely and deeply 
believes - that the Eisenhower program is best for the country. 

On September 15, 1954, Human Events had charged that no 
administration in history had so strikingly disregarded party loyalty 
in job appointments, many key positions having 

gone to CFR Democrats. Eisenhower also succeeded in destroying a 
coalition of Southern Conservative Democrats and Northern Republicans 
that had blocked much socialist legislation. Now Republicans were put 
in the position of being traitors if they did not support the 
Eisenhower Administration's programs. The Chicago Tribune of January 1, 
1958, commented editorially: 

The fact is that the Republican party, as it has developed, or, 
more properly, degenerated under Mr. Eisenhower and his Palace Guard, 
now stands for pretty nearly everything that can be found in 
unadulterated form under a Democratic wrapper. The great achievement of 
the occupant of the White House, if such it can be called, is to have 
destroyed the Republican party as a repository for any recognizable 
body of orthodox doctrine. 

The elections of 1954, 1956, and 1958 were Republican debacles, 
except for Eisenhower's personal success in 1956. As Theodore White 

Divorced from the personal curing power of his great name, in 
each measurable off-year Congressional election under his 

administration, the Republican party lost ground .... With the 
Democratic triumph in the election of 1958, the fortunes of the 
Republican party, as a party, had sunk to their lowest ebb since the 
zenith of the New Deal in 1936. 

While Republican candidates were being defeated, Eisenhower never 
campaigned for any other Republican, with the exception of the ultra- 
ultra-Liberal Clifford Case (CFR) , when he ran for the Senate in 1954. 
So successful was Ike at purging Conservatives from the GOP that at the 
end of the 1958 elections Harold Lavine, senior editor of Newsweek, 
wrote : 

Eisenhower has succeeded where Roosevelt and Truman failed . . . 
. The Republican party is a thoroughly demoralized body .... 
Republican morale has been able to sustain five 

successive defeats, but it has crumbled completely as a result of 
Eisenhower's two great victories. 39 

Eisenhower made no bones about the fact that there were no 
ideological differences, as far as he was concerned, between the two 
parties. Since he was really a Liberal Democrat who became a Liberal 
Republican only in order to run for the Presidency, this is not 
surprising. Writing in the Saturday Evening Post, Eisenhower stated his 
philosophy that the Republican party had a better delivery system for 

The difference between parties is, in most instances, a matter of 
approach to problems and programs. We Republicans want our government 
at appropriate levels to be responsive to our needs, but not to invade 
our individual rights, liberties, and responsibilities. Though we have 
many of the same ultimate goals as the Democrats, we disagree with them 
on methods and in their application, believing that ours are safer and 
more effective in preserving individual rights, responsibilities, and 
initiatives, which, after all, are the basis of self-government . 4o 

Conservative strength at the national level of the Republican 
party was decimated by the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration, so that 
when the grass-roots Conservative groundswell of the 1960 's developed, 
it was strictly at the local level, with little support within the 
national party machinery. The result of eight years of Eisenhower-Nixon 
was that the New Deal had not only been saved from threatened 
extinction, but had been expanded. William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in 

. . . The passion to federalize social and economic functions is 
as ardent today as it was in 1952, and beyond a few ritualistic 
rhetorical dampeners, Mr. Eisenhower has done nothing to check it. The 
problem of internal security, on the way to a solution when Mr. 
Eisenhower was elected, has, by his inattention, relapsed to a state 
worse than that under Mr. Truman. The labor 

barons, who posed in 1952 an acute problem understood by Senator Taft, 
have waxed stronger in five years, and have got virtual guarantees of 
noninterference from the Eisenhower Administration: for to interfere 
with them would mean to dig in and take a stand, and Eisenhower does 
not take stands, except against McCarthy and the Bricker Amendment . . 
. .41 

It is important to note from Mr. Buckley's concluding sentence that Mr. 
Eisenhower could be extremely tough and resolute when he wanted to be. 
Yet Mr. Buckley attributed Eisenhower's disastrous policies with regard 
to Communism to lack of understanding and will. Buckley wrote: 

There is no other intelligible explanation for Eisenhower's 
movements in the past five years than that he does not take the 
Communists at their word as to the aims of Communism. What man who 
knows Communism would have gone to Geneva to act as a sounding board 
for Communist propaganda? What man, having made the mistake of going, 
would have declared, the whole world breathless at his feet, that he 
believed the Communists - as he put it - "want peace as much as we do"? 
Where is the man who understands Communism who would say, as Eisenhower 
did at a press conference last summer, that "... I was very hard put 
to it when [Marshal Zhukov] insisted that [the Communist] system 
appealed to the idealistic, and we completely to the materialistic, and 
I had a very tough time trying to defend our position . . . "? Who 
except a man incapable of understanding Communism could, after so many 
demonstrations that the Communists mean exactly what their high priests 
say, permit the national policy to bog down one more time over so 
palpable a ruse as Marshal Bulganin's call for the one-millionth 
conference at which to "reconcile the world's differences"? .... The 
tranquil world of Mr. Eisenhower is the world in which the Communists 
are thriving. 42 

Mr. Buckley described the effect admirably and ignored the cause, 
i.e., that Dwight Eisenhower was the creation of the CFR and the men 
behind it, and was their willing tool if not their partner. Instead of 
being in retreat after eight years of 

"Republican" leadership, the world Communist movement was stronger than 
ever. It even had a foothold on our own doorstep in Cuba, thanks to 
brother Milton Eisenhower and the uncleansed State Department, which 
ignored reports that Castro was a long-time Communist. The "crusade" 
that had been promised was never launched. Instead, it was business as 
usual, with a new group of operators running the same show for the same 
Insiders behind the scenes. 

"We Are Not Going To Be Outbid" 

By 1960, Richard Nixon had, undergone eight years of solid 
apprenticeship for the Presidency. He had performed well. His pragmatic 
principles had proven sufficiently flexible to contort to any 
particular position that might be required by the President or his New 
York bosses. Richard Nixon was like the little boy in the fourth grade 
who wanted to be in the fifth graders' club. He wasn't quite sure what 
the club was all about or just who-all were in it, but nonetheless he 
had done everything possible to please the big boys in the hope that he 
might himself be initiated. 

Part of Nixon's frustration stemmed from the fact that he had 
never been accepted or trusted by Eisenhower. This distrust dated from 
the "Checkers speech." Shortly before Nixon went on the air, he 
received a phone call from Dewey telling him that Ike's advisers, and 
therefore obviously Ike, wanted him to end his TV program by offering 
his resignation to Ike. Dewey also asked Nixon to have telegrams of 
"Yea" or "Nay" in response to Nixon's plea sent to Los Angeles. The 
"Checkers speech" was really a behind-thescenes duel between Nixon and 
Eisenhower. Nixon didn't offer his resignation, but he ended the 
program by asking listeners to send their telegrams to the Republican 
National Committee in Washington, and said that he would leave to the 
Committee the decision as to whether or not he would stay on the 
ticket. Nixon was showing Ike and his backers that when it came to 
political in-fighting he had not come to 


town on a load of pumpkins with straw hanging out of his ears. The 
Republican National Committee was in the hands of party regulars and 
not Eisenhower people. Had the telegrams been sent to Los Angeles, as 
Dewey requested, the decision as to whether to keep Nixon on the ticket 
would still have been in Eisenhower's hands. Through this maneuver, 
Nixon saved his position on the ticket, and therefore his political 
career, but he paid a high price for it. Throughout, the eight years of 
the Eisenhower Administration, Eisenhower treated Nixon like a lowly 
clerk and an expendable errand boy. Although Nixon sat in on high-level 
strategy meetings, his advice was never sought. He was also 
deliberately left out of Ike's social life, and there were rooms in the 
White House that Nixon had never seen until LBJ gave him a tour in late 
1968. * 1 

During his years in the Vice Presidency, Nixon obviously had not 
been taken into the conspiratorial apparatus, although he certainly 
recognized its existence. His following of the Eisenhower program with 
its purging of Conservatives from the higher echelons of the party was 
doubtless pragmatic and opportun- 

-Many people have tried to condone Eisenhower's sins by contending that 
he was too dumb to know what he was really doing, citing the tongue- 
tangled syntax he displayed at press conferences. Not so, says Garry 
Wills in his highly readable (but in spots very misleading) book, Nixon 
Agonistes. Wills writes: "Eisenhower was not a political sophisticate; 
he was a political genius." Behind that infectious smile there resided 
a cold and calculating mind. Although Eisenhower did not do well 
scholastically at West Point, he scored extremely high at the even more 
competitive General Staff School. He was an excellent bridge player and 
turned poker into an extremely profitable pastime. More important, says 

Wills, Eisenhower's army career was largely built on his ability as a 
writer of manuals and ghost writer of speeches, and he was regarded as 
an excellent editor, with dogmatic insistence on precise syntax. The 
fumbling and bumbling and the garbled circumlocutions were so much show 
biz. This was a conscious strategy of Eisenhower's to avoid answering 
questions in detail. For example, Wills reports during the Quemoy-Matsu 
crisis, the President's press secretary, James Hagerty, advised him to 
take a "no comment" position on the whole issue. "Don't worry, Jim . . 
. . If that question comes up, 111 just confuse them, "replied 
Eisenhower. It takes superior intelligence to be able to deliberately 
double-talk one's way out of tough situations. The President's speech 
writer, Emmett John Hughes, acknowledged that Eisenhower "made not one 
politically significant verbal blunder throughout eight years of press 
conferences and public addresses." 

istic, an attempt to convince the Insiders that he could be trusted and 
would play their game. Some, as Paul Hoffman observed, still did not 
trust him. He had to fend off a movement headed by Harold Stassen (CFR) 
to remove him from the number two slot on the ticket in 1956. Ike had 
already suffered a heart attack, and there was a chance that if Ike 
died and Nixon became President, he might revert to the position of his 
antiCommunist days. The Stassen coterie wanted as veep, just in case, 
either Presidential assistant Sherman Adams (CFR) or Nixon's old tutor, 
Christian Herter (CFR), both of whom were known to be trustworthy. 

For a time, Ike seemed to be wavering, and he offered Nixon a 
cabinet post - any one he wanted, "except the State Department, which 
was reserved for Dulles." 2 (You'd better believe it was!) But the 
faction of Insiders supporting Nixon was stronger than the clique 
attempting to oust him. The Vice President's supporters included 
"Leonard Hall [CFRI, Dr. Milton Eisenhower [CFRI, Dewey [CFRJ, and 
Sidney J. Weinberg [BAC* ] . " 3 In fact Weinberg, reportedly 
Eisenhower's boss - possibly acting for staunch Eisenhower supporter 
and top Democrat Bernard Baruch - told Eisenhower, "I am for Dick Nixon 
100%. "4 Weinberg, had supported Nixon for the number two spot on the 
ticket in 1952 and was an advisor to Nixon in his 1960 Presidential 
races (Strangely, after supporting Nixon for so many years, Weinberg 
turned up as Hubert Humphrey's chief money raiser in 1968. This 
certainly dispels any idea that Weinberg had become more Conservative 
since his days of enlisting business support for FDR. Since party 
labels mean nothing to Insiders like Weinberg, he could jump from one 
CFR candidate to another with the ease of a gazelle hurdling a mud 
puddle. Weinberg's place on the Nixon team was reportedly taken, after 
his defection, by Kuhn, Loeb and Company partner Lewis L. Strauss 
[CFRI. ) 

'The Business Advisory Council was virtually an affiliate of the CFR. 
As 1960 neared, more and more was heard of the "new" Nixon. The 
"new" Nixon was not the shoddy Red baiter, the shrill campaigner of 
yore who resorted to sneaky debater's tricks, but a matured, statesman- 
like man sobered by his experiences in the Vice Presidency. Stewart 
Alsop commented: 

He wanted to be President very much, and he knew that he had a 
chance, perhaps a good chance, to become President. But he also knew - 
for he is anything but a fool - that a reputation as an extremist and 
partisan would sharply reduce that chance. Hence his change of 
political style. 

A man's motives are always mixed, and no doubt it is true that 
Nixon changed his political style after 1954 in part for purely 
practical political reasons. But does the change go deeper than that?6 

It certainly was not shallow opportunism that led to the birth of the 
"new" Nixon. It was a very deep-seated opportunism, as Nixon gained 
more and more knowledge concerning the power of the Insiders both 
inside and outside the Republican party. 

There were times when he slipped back into old Nixonisms, as in 
this statement before an audience in Cleveland in January 1958: 

If we have nothing to offer other than a pale carbon copy of the 
New Deal, if our only purpose is to gain and retain power, the 
Republican Party no longer has any reason to exist, and it ought to go 
out of business. 

But after the 1958 mid-term elections such rhetoric disappeared from 
Nixon's verbal ammunition stockpile. Now, the strategy was to publicize 
just how Liberal the "new" Nixon, the "real" Nixon, really was. During 
the latter years of the Eisenhower administration, sophisticated 
Liberals knew he was in their camp. Richard Wilson, chief of Look 
magazine ' s 

Washington Bureau, telegraphed this in a feature article for Look 
titled "The Big Change in Richard Nixon." Wilson raved on and on about 
the "new Nixon," declaring: 

He has made a distinct turn to the left. When the choice has been 
between the Republican right and the Republican left, Nixon has sided 
with the Republican left .... 

The years, then, are building up in Nixon a set of convictions he 
did not have four years ago. As he grows with these convictions, and 
becomes better known, voters will find a basis to judge his political 
readiness to go beyond his training stage - and into the White House. 
[Emphasis added.] ' 

Nixon himself was beginning to adjust his image with the rank and 
file. Biographer William Costello mentions: 

In another departure from party orthodoxy, he argued in favor of 
making liberals as well as conservatives feel at home in Republican 
ranks; he told a Philadelphia breakfast rally there was need for both 
conservative and liberal points of view in a healthy party .... a 

The New York Times reported that Nixon had begun "a quiet courtship of 
Republican liberals and moderates. "9 The theme was picked up by the 
Wall Street Journal, which duly noted: 

On foreign policy, he called himself "a liberal rather than a 
conservative because I have an international view rather than an 
isolationist view on foreign policy . ..." On economic matters he is 
"... trying to avoid getting obsessed with the idea (of balancing 
the budget) . " 10 

The very Liberal Chicago Sun Times, on December 31, 1959, did its bit 
toward debunking the idea that Nixon was still a Conservative: 

. . . The Democrats have stepped up their campaign to label 

Vice President Nixon as the darling of that reactionary fringe of the 
GOP known as the Old Guard. 
This is political hokum. 

The Old Guard - or what little is left of it - notoriously stands 
for isolationism and against social reform. 

Nixon is an internationalist in the tradition of Wendell Willkie, 
for whom he campaigned in 1940. He is an outspoken champion of the 
United Nations, of a stronger world court even at the cost of modifying 
U.S. sovereignty, of generous foreign aid .... 

As part of his presidential build-up, Nixon arranged for a trip to 
Russia in the summer of 1959. He went strictly on his own hook, as 
Eisenhower refused to give him any mission, but merely told him what 
subjects to avoid so as not to muddy the waters for the negotiations 
that were already going on behind the scenes. Ostensibly he was to 
"probe for areas of possible East-West agreement . . . and impress the 
Soviets with America's sincere desire for peace .... "11 Of course, 
anyone who knew as much about Communism as Nixon did was aware of the 
fact that the Communists had been cynically using "America's sincere 
desire for peace" to, their advantage ever since FDR agreed to 
recognize the Soviet Union in 1933. The idea that the Kremlin believes 
that we are really warmongers, and that therefore we must prove our 
good faith over and over while never reguiring any positive acts of 
good faith from the Communists, is so much hogwash. Once Nixon was in 
Moscow, Khrushchev guickly put him on the defensive by becoming highly 
irate about Congress' having passed a resolution commemorating "Captive 
Nations Week," which demanded that the United States "continue" [sic] 
its efforts to win the release of the millions of peoples held in the 
Soviet prison camp of nations. Nixon told Khrushchev, "This was a 
foolish resolution." "Do you mean to say that the members of Congress 
are fools?" Khrushchev asked. "This is just a private conversation," 
Nixon cleverly countered. 12 

In another dazzling display of verbal brilliance, the Vice 
President told the lovable Butcher of Budapest: 

There are some instances where you may be ahead of us - for 
example, in the development of the thrust of your rockets for the 
investigation of outer space; there may be some instances in which we 
are ahead of you - in color television, for instance. 13 

Khrushchev reportedly was polite and did not burst out laughing. Nixon, 
however, got even the next day when the two visited the American 
National Exhibition, a sort of county fair, which was being shown in 
Moscow. While in an exhibit of a typical American kitchen, the famous 
"kitchen debate" occurred, in which Nixon was graciously permitted to 
shake his finger in the Soviet tyrant's face for the benefit of press 
cameramen. That shot may have been worth a million votes. 

As the Republican National Convention approached, it became 
obvious that Nixon had the nomination sewed up tight. For nine years he 
had been stumping nearly every town and hamlet in the country for the 
Republican party and all of its candidates. His years on the creamed 
chicken circuit may have been responsible for considerable indigestion, 
but in their course Nixon had collected a bushel-basketful of political 
I.O.U.'s. The Republican National Convention was foreclosure time for 
the Calif ornian. As early as the previous March, polls showed that the 
Vice President was the favorite of 64 per cent of the country's 
Republicans, so there seemed to be little to worry about as convention 

time neared. Yet in mid-May, Nelson Rockefeller, newly elected governor 
of New York, tried to stick his nose into the Presidential tent. 
Rockefeller had no chance of getting the nomination, yet Rocky 's mere 
entrance onto the scene seems to have earned him a bargaining position 
with Nixon. When Rockefeller found he could not lay claim to the actual 
nomination, he moved to dictate policy from behind the scenes. A 

was thus arranged between Nixon and Rockefeller for the Saturday before 
the Republican Convention opened in Chicago. 

In The Making of the President, 1960, Theodore White noted that 
Nixon accepted all the Rockefeller terms for this meeting, including 
provisions "that Nixon telephone Rockefeller personally with his 
reguest for a meeting; that they meet at the Rockefeller apartment . . 
. that their meeting be secret and later be announced in a press 
release from the Governor, not Nixon; that the meeting be clearly 
announced as taking place at the Vice President's request; that the 
statement of policy issuing from it be long, detailed, inclusive, not a 
summary communique .' 4 

As a result of the meeting, a four-way telephone circuit was set 
up linking Rockefeller protege Charles Percy (chairman of the 
Republican Platform Committee and a board member of Rockefeller's Chase 
Manhattan Bank) , a second Rockefeller deputy in Chicago, Nixon, and 
Rockefeller. What finally emerged was the fourteen points of the famous 
Compact of Fifth Avenue. 

The Republican Platform Committee had been meeting in Chicago for 
an entire week, laboriously pounding out a platform reflecting the 
views of Republicans from all fifty states. Now the Platform Committee 
was handed the Rockefeller-Nixon orders: Forget the effort and the time 
you have spent to come to Chicago at your own expense, hear witnesses, 
and draft a document to submit to the Convention - throw it all out and 
accept the Rockefeller-Nixon platform worked out, in secret, eight 
hundred and thirty miles from the Convention site. The Liberals were 
ecstatic; here was their kind of democracy in action! 

The Wall Street Journal of July 25, 1960, claimed that the Fifth 
Avenue meeting was not a Rockefeller coup but a Nixon victory; that 
Nixon had needed a rationalization for dumping the party Conservatives. 
As a result of the meeting, the Journal stated: 

. . . a little band of conservatives within the party, of whom 
Senator Goldwater is symbol and spokesman, are shoved to the sidelines 
. . . . First impressions to the contrary, Mr. Nixon has achieved all 
this without giving Mr. Rockefeller a single important concession he 
did not want to make. 

This is not to deny that the fourteen points are very liberal 
indeed; they comprise a platform akin in many ways to the Democratic 
platform and they are a far cry from the things that conservative men 
think the Republican party ought to stand for .... 

But as you go down the fourteen points, one by one, it's clear 
they reflect the Nixon brand of liberalism .... 

Actually Mr. Nixon has rather skillfully used the Rockefeller 
meeting to get a few liberal planks into the platform which he already 
wanted but which he was having trouble getting through the platform 
committee .... 

Thus it is that in one burst of speed Richard Nixon has 
accomplished three maneuvers - defied the conservative wing of the 
party, cut loose from President Eisenhower and neatly outflanked his 
major opponent within the party . . . .Mr. Nixon's risk is that 
conservative voters will be outraged enough to stay away from the polls 

and that his liberal gesture will not in fact gain any liberal votes 
from the Democrats .... 

In doing so he has moved the Republican party a little more to 
the left on the political spectrum, a thing that is bound to be sad not 
only to men of conservative mind, but also to those who would like to 
see the philosophic differences that divide the country sharpened into 
clear political issues. Once more we are going to be deprived of that 
kind of a choice in a presidential election. 

As a matter of tactics, Mr. Nixon with this platform abandons the 
deep South and conservatives everywhere to whatever they can make of 
the Democratic platform. 

Another Wall Street Journal article of the same day concluded that the 
Rockefeller-Nixon agreement "brings the spotlight shining once more on 
a facet of his public image he has long labored to eradicate; that of 
1 Tricky Dick, ' the politician who sacrifices principle to expediency." 

The Chicago Tribune headlined its editorial on the Nixon- 
Rockefeller meeting, "Grant Surrenders to Lee." The welfare nlatform 
dictated by Rockefeller and Nixon, which 

included an endorsement of the objectives of Communistinspired sit-ins 
in the South, was called by Senator Goldwater "the Munich of the 
Republican Party." 

Republicans everywhere understood the meaning and significance of 
the new Rockefeller-Nixon alliance. Nixon had purged himself of his 
independence to become acceptable to the Insiders of the International 
Left. As Theodore White put it: 

Never had the quadrennial liberal swoop of the regulars been more 
nakedly dramatized than by the open compact of Fifth Avenue. Whatever 
honor they might have been able to carry from their services on the 
platform committee had been wiped out. A single night's meeting of the 
two men in a millionaire's triplex apartment in Babylon-by-the-Hudson, 
eight hundred and thirty miles away, was about to overrule them; they 
were exposed as clowns for all the world to see. 1 s 

Nixon confirmed the alliance by accepting as his running mate one 
of the foremost darlings of the international clique, a discredited 
instigator of the smear-Taft maneuver of 1952 and of the anti-McCarthy 
smear of 1954, Henry Cabot Lodge. Lodge then proceeded to virtually sit 
out the campaign. Newsweek of March 23, 1964, phrased it more 
delicately: "His laziness became legend." 

The Rockefeller-Nixon meeting certainly made it plain that Nixon 
was willing to pay the price Taft had been unwilling to pay. But the 
significance of the meeting may go much deeper than that. Rockefeller 
represented much more than a mere political rival. He was acting as a 
political power broker not just for himself, but for brother David of 
the mammoth Chase Manhattan Bank and the coterie of international 
bankers who form the nucleus of the Insiders' Council on Foreign 
Relations. It is very possible, though we shall never find out for 
sure, that at this time Nixon was initiated into one of the outer 
circles of the conspiracy. For the truth is that there was no need to 
crawl to 

Rockefeller. Nixon had the nomination in the bag regardless of what 
Rockefeller did. Rockefeller's influence in the Republican party is 
immense at the apex and quite small at the grassroots base. He is like 
the owner of a professional football team who cannot make the team he 

owns. Though Rockefeller would doubtless trade his left ear lobe for 
the Presidency, he is forced to operate through others at the 
Presidential level. Nixon is perfect for this. Nixon can deliver the 
grass roots and Rockefeller can deliver the CFR Establishment. The two 
men may dislike each other intensely, but they need each other. It may 
be that they are not even as great personal enemies as they appear to 
be. Nixon and Rockefeller were close friends during the Eisenhower 
Administration and Rocky sent Nixon this telegram in 1956: "... 
Under you and the President the Republican party is now emerging, at 
home and abroad, as the great liberal party of the future." 16 Stewart 
Alsop (CFR) indicates in his book Nixon and Rockefeller that the two 
men are really Leftwing birds of a feather: 

There are in fact, it should be noted, no sharp ideological 
differences between Rockefeller and Nixon, as there were between Dewey 
and Taft and Eisenhower and Taft . When Rockefeller worked in Washington 
for the first Eisenhower administration, he often found an ally in 
Nixon on such issues as foreign aid. The difference is really a 
difference of style and background and approach to politics - above 
all, the difference between a professional, partisan politician, a 
"regular, " and a seeming amateur with an air of being above 
partisanship. It is a choice which has confronted the Republican party 
before, although in different form. 17 

From a political standpoint, the most that Rockefeller could offer was 
the delivery of New York State in the election, and it was extremely 
doubtful that he could deliver that. To top it off, after receiving 
credit for dictating the Republican platform, Rockefeller, for all 
practical purposes, sat out the election, thus helping to ensure 
Nixon's defeat. Rockefeller may 

have figured that if Nixon were defeated in 1960, he, Rockefeller, 
would have the inside shot at the nomination in 1964. 

But there can be little doubt that Nixon knew what he was doing. 
Although it appeared to the man in the street that he had made a 
foolish bargain and had sold out for a mess of pottage, actually Nixon 
had insured his long-run political career. Of course, Mr. Nixon could 
have chosen to fight the conspiracy, but having seen the depth of its 
power during the Eisenhower administration, he apparently figured it 
was much easier to join the conspirators than to fight them. Otherwise 
his actions in 1960 make little sense, and whatever he is, Nixon is a 
shrewd politician. 

That there was a deal of monstrous proportions is beyond 
question. In analyzing Nixon's acceptance speech at the Republican 
Convention, the Wall Street Journal of August 1, 1960, noted: 

He does not reject any particular Federal activity - whether it 
be Federal medical help for the aged, Federal aid to education, or 
Federal foreign aid - on the ideological ground that it is 
something the central government has no right to do. 

Of course, Nixon did throw a bone to the dejected Conservatives, 
proclaiming in his acceptance speech: "The only answer to a strategy of 
victory for the Communist world is the strategy of victory for the free 
world." But, as the Journal commented, "Exactly what Mr. Nixon has in 
mind in this regard will have to await clarification." That 
clarification never came. 

In the 1960 campaign Nixon attempted a feat more difficult than 
passing a camel through the eye of a needle. He tried to outpromise the 
Democrats. Newsweek of July 11, 1960 quoted him as saying: 

We are not going to be outbid .... We can reach goals the 
so-called economic liberals of the Galbraith-Schlesinger school can 
never reach. We can show that we can produce better schools, hospitals, 
health, higher living standards. 

And Nixon knew what he was doing. He was now advocating more of 
the very same policies he had once denounced so vociferously as 
socialist and Communist. On July 29, 1960, the Wall Street Journal even 
headlined an article, "Nixon Aims to Wed Fiscal Responsibility to 
Welfare State." As the Journal explained: 

. . . the Republican party this year stands on a platform that 
borrows much from this modern liberalism. In the area of civil rights, 
and welfare legislation, in the acceptance of big Government spending, 
the Republican party is once more seeking to meet the Democratic party 
on its own ground .... 

Mr. Nixon is going to completely ignore any distinction between 
conservatives and liberals in wide political areas .... 

He will accept it as proper for the Government to intervene in 
the nation's business, to take on for the people some of the 
obligations which were once left to them individually - the path is 
straight from social security to socialized medical care. In that sense 
the Roosevelt revolution is complete; Mr. Nixon, if elected, will not 
dismantle the welfare state. 

The only difference the Journal could find between the Democrats and 
Republicans was that the Democrats promised socialism through deficit 
spending, while the Nixon Republicans promised socialism with balanced 
budgets. Either way, America was to be the loser. 

Before the campaign even started, Nixon had announced that 
internal subversion was a dead issue, stating: 

Domestic Communism is no longer a political issue. The danger has 
receded a great deal in the last few years, domestically, mainly 
because we have become increasingly aware of it. The Communists used to 
fool an awful lot of well meaning people who were not Communists. There 
is still a group, a small group that can be fooled. 18 

And, as if to make sure that nobody missed how completely he had joined 
the socialist team, candidate Nixon added: 

If we have to choose in allocating funds between military 
programs and economic, information, and other non-military 
programs, I would put the emphasis on the non-military 
programs, and take a gamble on the military programs. 

In a book put out for the campaign, biographer Earl Mazo reported 
that Richard Nixon personally "considers himself a "radical' when it 
comes to the goals he would set for the country (his definition of 
"radical' being the "opposite of conservative') ." 

In his campaign against fellow CFR member Senator John Kennedy, 
Richard Nixon regularly pulled his punches. Who will ever forget 
Nixon's "I agree with Mr. Kennedy. . ." statements on the TV debates? 
He never discussed what informed Republicans considered to be his best 

issue: the Senate records of Kennedy and Johnson - including Senator 
Kennedy's sponsorship of legislation to repeal the loyalty oath 
provision of the National Defense Education Act, his vigorous support 
of Communist revolutionaries in Algeria, and his backing of the repeal 
of the Battle Act provision, which prohibited the sending of strategic 
materials to Iron Curtain countries. And Nixon never even mentioned Mr. 
Johnson's killing of the bill to restore to the states the right to 
punish subversion. 

Instead, like Willkie and Dewey before him, Richard Nixon 
conducted a campaign using the orthodox "New York strategy, " 
concentrating his efforts on the big cities at the expense of rural 
areas, the West, and the South. Nixon failed as Willkie and Dewey had 
failed before him because he simply could not force the Liberal East 
and Conservative West into a single phalanx. The principal irony of Mr. 
Nixon's campaign was that he could very probably have won every state 
he did win without any effort to project a "new 

Nixon." And had he not turned Left, he might have picked up in the 
South the votes he needed to become President in 1960. 
Yes, it was very ironic. 

It had, indeed, been a strange campaign - especially considering 
that it was waged by one whose long suit was two-fisted campaigning. 
Gone were the thumb-in-the-eye, ear-biting, shin-kicking campaigns of 
yore. Nixon had suddenly become dignified. No more rolling in the dirt. 
Now it was tea and crumpets with the opponent. Republicans kept waiting 
for Nixon "to take the gloves off." But Nixon had traded his boxing 
gloves for the white fawnskin variety. An exasperated Brent Bozell 
wrote in his National Review column: 

M-moment, that point in future time when Richard Nixon throws off 
the camouflage and hauls up his true conservative colors, moves 
steadily forward along its inexorable path to infinity. Nixon's Moment 
of Truth was scheduled for early 1960 when he would become an "avowed" 
candidate and in that capacity would speak his "real" mind. When spring 
turned to summer and not much had happened besides the avowal, the 
deadline was set ahead to the Republican convention. Then the Vice 
President would step forward: Since his official status as party 
standard-bearer would take precedence over the inhibiting 
responsibilities of his present office, Nixon would at last be free to 
elaborate on his differences with the [Eisenhower] administration. Now 
these differences have begun to emerge and they all point the wrong 
way. Conservatives have steeled themselves, accordingly, to yet another 
postponement - we will be patient through the campaign, but watch the 
smoke after Inauguration Day! 

Many conservatives were telling themselves that last week, but 
very few of them believed it. 19 

On election day Kennedy edged Nixon by an eyelash and that with 
the aid of many of the dear departed in Texas and in Cook County, 
Illinois, who returned from the 

hereafter to vote the straight Democratic ticket. With Texas and 
Illinois in the Republican column, Nixon would have been elected 
President . 

The New York Times' very liberal Tom Wicker made a noteworthy 
point regarding vote frauds: 

A shift of only 4,480 popular votes from Kennedy to Nixon in 
Illinois, where there were highly plausible charges of fraud, and 4,491 

in Missouri would have given neither man an electoral majority and 
thrown the decision into the House of Representatives. If an additional 
1,148 votes had been counted for Nixon in New Mexico, 58 from Hawaii, 
and 1,247 in Nevada he would have won an outright majority in the 
electoral college .... Any experienced reporter or politician knows 
that that few votes can easily be "swung" in any state by fraud or 
honest error. 2° 

In a post-election report following the Kennedy-Nixon race, 
Richard Wilson, the veteran Washington correspondent and columnist, 
wrote in Look magazine, in an article entitled "How To Steal An 
Election" : 

For the first time, many thousands of Americans suddenly realized 
that elections can be stolen. They only half-believed it before 1960, 
as part of our historical lore .... Many, many thousands of voters 
and civic-minded people in several leading states no longer take the 
easygoing attitude toward election frauds. 

The thievery in Texas, where such things were traditional 
whenever Lyndon Johnson was involved in a race, was so blatant that 
Texas political reporters were screaming for some national media 
representative to pick up the story. At least 100,000 votes had been 
stolen and the KennedyJohnson ticket carried the state by only 46,000. 
New York Herald Tribune reporter Earl Mazo did a four-part article 
detailing how the election was stolen. Nixon invited Mazo over to his 
office and Mazo assumed Nixon was finally going to call for a federal 
investigation. Instead, to Mazo's shock, 

Nixon told him: "Earl, those are interesting articles you are writing - 
but no one steals the presidency of the United States." Mazo states: "I 
thought he might be kidding. But never was a man more deadly serious . 
. . he enumerated potential international crises that could be dealt 
with only by the President of a united country, and not a nation torn 
by the kind of partisan bitterness and chaos that inevitably would 
result from an official challenge of the election result." Nixon 
claimed: "Our country can't afford the agony of a constitutional crisis 
- and I damn well will not be a party to creating one just to become 
President or anything else." 21 

Nixon pleaded with Mazo to cancel the eight remaining articles he 
had prepared on how the election was stolen. It is obvious from Mazo's 
statements that he was sure Nixon had been defrauded. But Nixon 
apparently was willing to reward the thieves. He was strangely 
magnanimous, for a man who for years had moved heaven and earth to claw 
his way to the top of the political heap. 

This odd behavior from a man who had earned a well- justified 
reputation for political ruthlessness naturally triggered a bevy of 
rumors. Most of them centered on widely circulated unconfirmed stories 
that Kennedy had information about a large Caribbean gambling debt 
Nixon had run up, a real estate scandal in California, or strange 
actions by Nixon's closest friend, "Sweet Bebe" Rebozo. 

More plausible is the theory that Nixon knew the timing was not 
right for him and that the Insiders wanted Kennedy. Nixon wanted to be 
President all right, and expected to be. But he was farsighted enough 
in 1961 to realize that his way of helping the Insiders to advance, by 
posing as an antiCommunist who continuously had to yield to Communist 
pressures to avoid worse results - which had been the formula during 

the Eisenhower years - was not going to be the formula preferred by the 
top Insiders for the next eight-year stretch, 1961 through 1968. 

For the last thirty years the Insiders have been carrying out 
this strategy in America by alternating swings of the pendulum. In 1961 
they were ready for another eight-year period of driving this country 
down the road to Communism by direct measures, carried out under a 
President whose political strength depended on his open support of 
Communism disguised as Liberalism. Nixon did not fit that picture, and 
knew it well. The last thing he wanted was, as President, to be bucking 
Insider plans; or, alternatively, to lose his own political following 
by failing to do so. It was going to be 1969 before those bosses would 
want another Eisenhower in the White House. And Nixon was by no means 
reluctant to wait . 

The next episode in the strange political career of Richard 
Nixon, following his eyelash defeat (if that is what it was) by JFK, 
was his strange guest for the governorship of California. This 
undertaking is still shrouded in mystery and, as with so many other 
important stories, the men who know are not about to talk. What we do 
know is that Nixon's decision to run for the governorship of the Smog 
State was tied in with the political ambitions of two other men, former 
California Assemblyman Joe Shell and Nelson Rockefeller. Shell, a 
former captain of the USC football team, was a hard-nosed Conservative 
with political ambitions; and at this time (the early ' 60's) 
Rockefeller had not undergone a divorce and his aspirations to be 
President were much more realistic than they were later to become. 

In early 1962, ' Shell contacted Nixon, who was then practicing 
law in Beverly Hills, to see if the former Vice President had any 
intention of seeking the governorship. Shell was realistic enough to 
know that he would have no chance against the universally known Nixon 
in a primary fight for the Republican nomination, and he did not 
propose to waste time and money in trying. Nixon assured Shell that 
under no circumstances would he become a candidate for the 
governorship. Based on Nixon's unqualified declaration that he was not 
interested, Shell filed for the governorship in the primary. 

Some weeks later Shell received a "courtesy" phone call from 
Nelson Rockefeller. After an exchange of pleasantries, Rockefeller 
asked Shell where he., would stand if he were elected governor and 
thereby became the leader of the California delegation to the 1964 
Republican nominating convention. Shell replied that he was sorry to 
have to say that he would not be in Rockefeller's corner. This rather 
abruptly terminated the "courtesy" call. One week later to the day, a 
Friday, Rockefeller's secretary called Shell's secretary and announced 
that Richard Nixon would be entering the California gubernatorial race. 

We can only speculate on just what kind of hold Rockefeller had 
over Nixon, or what kind of deal Rockefeller had made with Nikon either 
personally or as a member of the Insider Establishment. Jules Witcover, 
in his recent book The Resurrection of Richard Nixon, reveals: 

It has been widely assumed that Nixon ran for governor in 1962 
because he was unable to resist local and state pressures from 
important Republicans in California. Although it is true such pressures 
were great, the strongest persuasion came not from California but from 
Republican powers and friends in the East . . . .22 

Later, Witcover adds: 

There were many others, though, who thought Nixon needed it [the 
California governorship] if he hoped to make another serious try at the 
Presidency. They were the same members of "the Eastern Establishment" - 
that rather formless collection of Republican moderates best symbolized 
by the last Republican Presidential loser, Thomas E. Dewey of New York 

- who had masterminded Dwight D. Eisenhower's two party nominations and 
had helped Nixon nail down the Republican nomination in 

1960. Several times in early and mid-1961, Nixon and Finch traveled 
back to New York and Washington to confer with Dewey, Herbert Brownell, 
Jr., William P. Rogers, Clifford Folger, the old Eisenhower and Nixon 
finance man, Leonard W. Hall, General Eisenhower's campaign manager . . 
. .23 

Harold "Butch" Powers, who had also entered the primary, bowed out with 
this statement: 

The kingmakers, whoever they may be and wherever they live, have 
decreed in effect that California Republicans shall take a discard from 
the rubble heap of national politics . . .24 

It has been claimed that Nixon had to run if he was to retain any 
semblance of national party leadership, and that the California 
governorship was a forum for such leadership. Subseguent happenings 
have proved this was not true. 

Nixon defeated Shell handily in the primary and appeared to be a 
shoo-in against Democrat incumbent Edmund G. Brown. Under Brown, known 
as "Pat" to his friends and "Bumbles", to his critics, taxes had 
skyrocketed, while everything else seemed to be disintegrating. In 
addition, "Bumbles," referred to by Time Magazine as "a tower of 
jelly, " had a penchant for inserting his foot in his mouth and was not 
particularly popular with rank and file Democrats. Also, unlike the 
Presidential race in which Nixon had had to defend the administration, 
this one found him free to attack, to exploit the numerous weak spots 
in Brown's record. 

Reflecting all these factors, early summer polls showed Nixon 
leading Brown by 53 to 37 per cent, with 10 per cent undecided. Even if 
he lost all of the undecided vote, he would still win handily. Yet 
somehow Nixon managed to blow the election in the state he had carried 
comfortably in his 1960 Presidential race. 

Nixon, the man famed for his slick, hard-hitting campaigns, 
proceeded to conduct a stumbling, amateurish cam- 
paign that left his supporters aghast. The campaign seemed to be dogged 
by bad luck from the beginning. An airliner crashed, killing Richard 
Jones (CFR) , who was carrying a valise with $65,000 in cash, widely 
reported to be funds from the Establishment for the Nixon campaign. 
Another problem was the $205,000 loan made to Richard Nixon's mother, 
Hannah, in 1951, by the Hughes Tool Company. Every time the subject was 
brought up, Nixon would say how happy he was that someone had asked him 
that guestion. You can imagine how happy he was. Nixon always prefaces 
his "answer" to a tough guestion by telling you how ecstatic he is that 
you are trying to nail him. Next, he says that he wants to make himself 
"perfectly clear, " and then you know the double talk is about to begin 

- but it will be the most sincere double talk you have ever heard. 

In this case Nixon explained that his mother had put up a piece 
of property as collateral for the loan, and that the lot meant a great 
deal to his mother. This, of course, did not answer the guestion of 
whether it is moral or ethical for a politician in high office to 

permit his family to receive a secret loan from a major defense 
contractor . 

Nixon's brother, Donald, not Hannah Nixon, was the recipient of 
the $205,000. He never paid it back, but instead went through 
bankruptcy, and the Hughes Tool Company wound up with the property. 

Another embarrassing matter that was brought up during the 
gubernatorial campaign was the fact that Nixon, who had always been a 
strong champion of civil rights and who was a member of the NAACP, had 
bought a home in Washington, D.C., the deed to which contained a 
restrictive clause forbidding its sale to Negroes. 25 Lawsa mercy, that 
was embarrassing. 

Nixon had won fame as a campaigner by always being on the attack. 
But in 1962, he ran a strangely defensive campaign. "Bumbles" Brown was 
not only subject to attack 

because of his incompetence; he also was more vulnerable to "Red- 
baiting" than the "Pink Lady," Helen Gahagan Douglas, had been. Pat 
Brown had been president of the Northern California chapter of the 
National Lawyers Guild, cited by the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities as "the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party." But 
Nixon never mentioned that. 

Brown was also closely tied to the California Democratic Council 
(CDC) , which, according to a former FBI undercover operative, had been 
formed with the help of the Communist Party. The CDC ' s stand on 
virtually all issues was unbelievably identical with the official 
Communist Party line as set down in Party publications. Not only did 
Nixon not broach this serious issue, he actually took steps against 
Republican Conservatives who wished to make an issue of Brown's strange 
bedfellows . 

And then there was Proposition 24, the Francis Amendment, to 
outlaw the Communist Party. Half a million voters signed petitions to 
put this anti-subversive measure on the ballot. William F. Knowland's 
Oakland Tribune editorial on October 29, 1962, stated: 

Every such law, even if perfectly written, is challenged and 
subjected to court test .... This will undoubtedly happen again, and 
if Proposition 24 has faulty sections, they will be eliminated by court 
action .... On the other hand, the measure contains certain 
provisions that are vitally needed. 

The Communists were all against Proposition 24. Pat Brown and his CDC 
cohorts were against it, the entire Leftist clague was against it, and 
so was Richard Nixon. Nixon claimed that the proposed law was 
unconstitutional, although the measure had been carefully drawn up by a 
battery of constitutional attorneys to avoid the very pitfalls Nixon 
claimed were in the bill. Strangely, Nixon spent much of his effort in 
attacking Proposition 24 instead of Pat Brown. 

Even more strangely, Nixon devoted much time to attacking 
incumbent Republican Congressman John Rousselot and Edgar Hiestand 
because of their membership in The John Birch Society. Richard Nixon, 
the man with the reputation of being "the great unifier" of Party 
factions, the man who could support such ultra-Leftists as Clifford 
"Hopeless" Case (CFR) and Jacob Javits (CFR) , was now reading two 
incumbent Conservatives out of the party. This despite Nixon's pre- 
primary pledge of full support for the entire state GOP slate. zb In 
retrospect, it appears guite obvious that Nixon pursued this suicidal 
course under orders from headguarters - New York. Nixon alienated 
Conservatives in both parties, and many of them either did not vote for 

any gubernatorial candidate in the election, or voted for an unknown 
dentist who was running for governor as a patriotic Conservative, on 
the Prohibition Party ticket. The Nixon-Brown race drove many people to 
the "dry" candidate. 

The result was a debacle. Forced to run on a campaign format 
dictated by Establishment Insiders, Nixon's former 53 per cent lead 
evaporated into a defeat by 300,000 votes. At the same time Dr. Max 
Rafferty was running for State Superintendent of Education on a 
Conservative platform, and even with the all-out opposition of all 
Liberal-labor forces, he wound up winning by more than 210,000 votes. 
Rafferty received over 500,000 more votes than Nixon. 

Operating under the conditions imposed on him by Rockefeller and 
the Establishment was undoubtedly a particularly frustrating 
experience. Losing to JFK by a hairbreadth was certainly no disgrace, 
but losing (or, in essence, being forced to take a dive) to Brown was 
humiliating. The morning after his defeat Nixon made his famous 
farewell to politics speech ("You don't have Nixon to kick around any 
more"), in which he lambasted the media for their bias. The whole thing 
had been a nightmare, and on that morning 

Nixon probably believed that his political career was deader than the 
mahjongg craze. 

Among those factors contributing to Nixon's defeat was the widely 
held suspicion that Nixon wanted the California governorship as a 
stepping stone to a second try for the Presidency. This belief was 
given impetus on election eve, when Nixon inadvertently referred to 
himself on television as the prospective "Governor of the United 
States. "2' But this was not actually the case. By this time Nixon knew 
full well that the strategy of the Insiders called for eight years of 
rather overt moves toward building an all-powerful socialist state, and 
that his time had not yet come. And he also knew that his patience 
would be rewarded. Jules Witcover in The Resurrection of Richard Nixon, 
revealed some facts concerning Nixon's California race: 

Nixon was not seeking a stepping-stone to a 1964 rematch against 
John F. Kennedy; he was seeking a sanctuary from it. Far from wanting 
to use the State-house in Sacramento to launch another Presidential bid 
in 1964, as Brown successfully charged in the 1962 campaign, Nixon 
actually had hoped to use it as a four-year hiding place, from which he 
could avoid making another losing race against Kennedy. Inherent in his 
decision to run for governor was a Presidential timetable not of 1964, 
but of 1968, when he finally did make his second try. Thus, though he 
lost in California in 1962, the gubernatorial contest in the end served 
the political purposes intended at the start - to keep Nixon off the 
national ballot in 1964 and to make him the Republican Party's logical 
choice in 1968! The circumstances that produced both these results 
never of course were anticipated. But because Richard Nixon did not win 
in California in 1962 and did not run for President in 1964, he was 
able to emerge again in 1968, when his party found itself with a rare 
opportunity for victory, but facing a leadership vacuum. 2$ 

Following the disastrous loss to Brown, Nixon picked up his family and 
shuffled off to New York to join the Wall Street law firm of Mudge, 
Rose, Guthrie, Alexander and Mitch- 
ell. * The deal was reportedly arranged by Nixon's old friend, Elmer 
Bobst, of Warner Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. The firm did not seek 
Nixon. Nixon moved into Nelson Rockefeller's apartment building at 810 
Fifth Avenue, into the same apartment where Nixon and Rockefeller had 

arranged the infamous "Compact of Fifth Avenue" in 1960. After 
Rockefeller re-married he had moved into an apartment on the other side 
of the building. Thus, all during Nixon's stay in New York he and Rocky 
were neighbors. z9 It does seem unusual that one would buy an apartment 
from and become a neighbor of someone who is supposed to be one's 
political arch-enemy. Just how this, and Nixon's joining a New York law 
firm, fit in with his consenting to be Rocky 's hatchet man against Joe 
Shell, we cannot tell. Those who know the story behind this story are 
not talking, and it is a line of guestioning that most reporters do not 
care to follow. 

While Nixon's job with Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander and 
Mitchell was reputedly arranged by Elmer Bobst and not Rockefeller, the 
Mitchell of the firm was John Mitchell, now the Attorney General, who 
was Rockefeller's personal attorney. Furthermore, columnist Leonard 
Lyons, on September 6, 1968, reported that the firm handles much of 
Chase Manhattan's (Rockefeller's) trust business. Bobst is listed as a 
member of the highly secret Pilgrim Society, which is even closer to 
the inner circle of the conspiracy than the CFR. 

When Nixon left Washington, he reportedly had little more than an 
old Oldsmobile automobile, Pat's respectable Republican cloth coat, and 
a government pension. While in law practice Nixon had an income of 
$200,000 per year, of which more than half went to pay for the 
apartment in Rocky's building. By 1968, he reported his net worth as 
$515,830, while assigning a value of only $45,000 to his partnership in 
his increasingly flourishing law firm. Nixon 

*A former partner in the firm had been notorious Communist-f ronter 
Roger Baldwin, a founder of the A.C.L.U. 

listed total assets of $858,190 and liabilities of $342,360. Most of 
his assets represented Florida and New York real estate. All of this 
reveals a remarkable use of capital, considering that income taxes on 
$200,000 are substantial. Nixon was reportedly paying $70,000 a year in 
income taxes, and $109,500 a year in payments and taxes on his 
cooperative apartment, which alone would eat up $180,000 of his 
$200,000 salary. In addition, there was the unknown cost of his 
limousine and chaffeur and his constant traveling all over the country 
and the world, plus the normal costs of first-class living in New York 

During this time Nixon was also moving up in social circles. 
Theodore White informs us: 

He himself [Nixon] belonged uptown to the Links Club, the 

most Establishment of New York's Establishment clubs. Down- 
town, he belonged to the Recess Club and India House . . . .30 

Nixon also joined three exclusive and expensive golf clubs. 

It may be that the frugal Mr. Nixon acguired the investment 
capital that mushroomed into $858,190 in assets by faithfully plugging 
his change into a piggy bank. Then again, it may have been part of 
Nixon's deal with Rockefeller and the Insiders that Mr. Nixon's 
personal poverty problems should be solved. 

It was while Nixon was studying for the New York bar examination 
and enjoying his newly acguired life of luxury that the phenomenon 
known as the Goldwater Movement was burgeoning across the land. 

Goldwater Over The Dam 

After seven futile tries, in 1964 the Conservatives, those who 
formed the vast majority of the grass roots of the party, finally 
succeeded in nominating one of their own to run for the Presidency. The 
impetus for the Goldwater nomination came from the Conservative 
movement that had mushroomed following the election of John Kennedy. It 
was primarily a young movement and a grass-roots movement. The new 
Conservative forces came not from the top down, as the stereotype put 
out by Theodore White and other authors would suggest, but from the 
bottom up. The Goldwater drive was as far from the "boss" image as it 
is possible to get; it was a rare occasion of spontaneous ideological 
fervor imposing its energies on a reluctant candidate. 

It was the personal commitment of people who believed their 
efforts made a difference that fueled the Goldwater effort, from the 
primary battles, to the delegate contest in state conventions, to the 
floor of San Francisco's Cow Palace. The Goldwater people had a "secret 
weapon" - the Conservative movement and the profound commitment of its 
partisans. Campaign director Cliff White found in the legions of the 
movement the people who would go out and make the personal contacts, 
ring the doorbells, and sit through the precinct meetings. He found 
people who were motivated by the philosophy of Conservatism. In 
November 1964, of course, this motivation was not sufficient to 
overcome the many handicaps under which Goldwater operated. But 
without the commitment Goldwater would not have been in the race in the 
first place. In ten primaries Goldwater got 2,148,000 votes, or 48 per 
cent of the total. His nearest rival, Nelson Rockefeller, got 
1,163,000, or 28 per cent. 

If the little people liked Goldwater, the big people, and 
particularly the Establishment Insiders, certainly did not. Big 
business, which is supposed to be Conservative and usually is not, 
recognized Goldwater as a man it could not control and jumped out of 
the Republican boat to huddle with Lyndon Johnson, a man who is known 
to be a pretty shrewd financier himself. 

In no campaign had the prejudice of the press expressed itself so 
clearly as in the legendary distortions of Goldwater 's stands. 1 

The true ideological colors of Huntley-Brinkley, Life, Look, 
Time, Newsweek, et al . , have never been more glaringly obvious than in 
the treatment given Goldwater in his campaign. From a public relations 
standpoint Goldwater was a most promotable item, and could easily have 
been given the same charisma that has been created for Lindsay, 
Rockefeller, and Percy. A sort of modern Thomas Jefferson, Goldwater 
was a chronic gadgeteer, a jet plane pilot, a sports car fancier, a ham 
radio operator, an expert on western lore, and an honorary member of an 
Indian tribe. He was dashing in appearance and laced his public remarks 
with humor and colloquialisms (which were magnificently twisted by the 
press) . But Goldwater was a threat to the CFR one-party system, and all 
the big guns of the American communications and publishing industry 
were turned on him in an attempt to destroy not merely the man, but the 
movement behind him. 

But nowhere was Goldwater attacked as viciously and ferociously 
as he was by members of his own party, including many for whom 
Goldwater had made personal campaign efforts in the past. The Liberals 
loosed upon Goldwater a storm of accusation and innuendo that made 
their assaults 

upon the late Senator Taft in 1952 look like warm endorsements. Nelson 
Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge appeared before 40,000 Negro 
demonstrators in the streets of San Francisco during the convention, 
openly inciting them against the candidacy of the man about to be 
chosen to head their own party ticket. Scranton camp followers spread 
incredible tales, suggesting that Goldwater was perhaps in league with 
neo-Fascists in Germany - this about a man whose own father was Jewish. 
During the California primary Rockefeller had mailed out a million 
reprints of Look magazine's smear on Goldwater, and Rocky insinuated 
that Goldwater supporters used "Communist and Nazi methods." At the 
convention the Liberals tried to insert in the platform a repudiation 
of "extremist groups such as the Communists, the Ku Klux Klan, [and] 
The John Birch Society." The technigue was obvious: to lump a patriotic 
organization together with two antiAmerican subversive groups (the 
albatross technigue) , and dump them all into the lap of Goldwater - and 
this from the very Liberals who used to scream loudest about "guilt by 
association" when it was accurately applied to Communists and fellow 
travelers. The entire tenor of the '64 convention was to brand 
Goldwater as a madman and an extremist. The Liberals denounced 
Goldwater' s supporters as extremists but were unwilling to denounce the 
ADA, the ACLU, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, CORE, or any of the 
radical leftwing societies that are influential in the Democratic 
Party . 

The image of Goldwater as a bomb-crazed maniac fastened on him, 
as Theodore White observed, "first by Rockefeller, then by Scranton, 
then by Johnson" - was decisive. The result was that Goldwater wound up 
running his campaign "not only against Lyndon Johnson and the 
Democratic record, but against fear itself." z Up through the primaries 
and the convention, both Rockefeller and Scranton 

strove to argue that they, not Goldwater, were true "Conservatives." 
Goldwater was portrayed as a "radical" who wanted to defoliate 
everything, including downtown New York. Robert Donovan observed that: 

The fear that a Goldwater administration might somehow lead to 
war was the most powerful single factor Johnson had on his side. 
Everywhere reporters and poll-takers found voters worried about what 
Goldwater would do abroad .... This worry was undoubtedly the main 
reason why many men and women who might otherwise have been expected to 
vote Republican deserted Goldwater. 3 

The climax of the liberal Republican attack on Goldwater was 
contained in the infamous Scranton "letter," which is an excellent 
example of how immoderate moderates can be when dealing with 
Conservatives. The letter to Goldwater, which was distributed to every 
convention delegate, stated: 

Your supporters . . . admit that you area minority candidate, but 
feel they have bought, beaten and compromised enough delegate support 
to make the result a foregone conclusion. 

With open contempt for the dignity, integrity and common sense of 
the convention, your managers say in effect that the delegates are 
little more than a flock of chickens whose necks will be wrung at will 

You have too often casually prescribed nuclear war as a solution 
to a troubled world. 

You have too often allowed the radical extrenusts to use you. 

You have too often stood for irresponsibility in the serious 
question of racial holocaust .... 

In short, Goldwaterism has come to stand for a whole crazy-quilt 
collection of absurd and dangerous positions that would be soundly 
repudiated by the American people in November. 

When Scranton issued his various statements, of which the 
"letter" was merely the last of a series, he had no realistic chance 
for the nomination. The question had been settled 

before he entered the race. The only purpose that would be served by 
this eleventh hour harangue was to destroy Goldwater's slender chance 
of election in the fall. Describing Scranton 's frame of mind when he 
jumped into the race, Theodore White tells us in The Making of the 
President, 1964: "It was his party: and if, to save it, he had to 
punish Goldwater, an old friend, and destroy, in 1964 the value of his 
nomination, then so it had to be." After Scranton had done his dirty 
work he faded away like an old political soldier. White states that the 
strategy of the "letter": 

. . . had made the Republican convention the stage for the 
destruction of the leading Republican candidate. What Rockefeller had 
begun in the spring, Scranton finished in June and at the convention: 
the painting for the American people of a half-crazed leader 
indifferent to the needs of American society at home and eager to 
plunge the nation into war abroad .... Rockefeller and Scranton had 
drawn up the indictment, Lyndon Johnson was the prosecutor. Goldwater 
was cast as the defendant. 4 

The hatchet job was done by Liberal Republicans. The Democrats were 
just the clean-up committee. 

Of course, it would be ludicrously false to maintain that 
Goldwater was headed for a smashing victory in November 1964 until he 
was stabbed in the back by members of his own party. All polls showed 
that Goldwater's popularity had peaked out just prior to the tragic 
assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963. Even though the 
President was shot down by an avowed Marxist who had spent several 
years in Russia, and who following his arrest gave the Communist 
clenched fist salute and called for John J. Abt, the chief defense 
attorney for the Communist party, to serve as his lawyer, the American 
media blamed the President's assassination on "the climate of hate." 
Strong implications were made that Conservative activists were somehow 
to blame for the 

assassination of the President. The New England Liberal, who according 
to all the polls was losing popularity, was replaced by a man variously 
regarded as a Southerner or Westerner, who was believed, mistakenly, to 
be quite Conservative. During the campaign LBJ delivered a number of 
speeches that would have won him a standing ovation at a DAR 
convention. The issue of Conservatism versus Liberalism, which was to 
have been the focal point of the 1964 campaign, never succeeded in 
getting discussed after the death of Kennedy. 

Robert Donovan noted that: "Millions of voters regarded Johnson 
as a middle-of-the-road conservative and Goldwater as a radical 
extremist . " 

Stanton Evans has asked why it was that, if the Conservative 
position is as politically disastrous as we are told, the Liberals, 
confronted with the first Conservative presidential candidate in thirty 
years, labored so hard to demonstrate that he was not a Conservative. 

If the American consensus is overwhelmingly Liberal, the best possible 
strategy against a Conservative candidate would seem to be to prove 
that he is a Conservative, while the best possible strategy for a 
Liberal candidate would of course be to present himself in full ADA 
regalia. Yet the Republican Liberals, Johnson, and their supporters in 
the media resolutely avoided the confrontation. They stuck to the 
technigue of personal attack, promoting the idea that Goldwater was an 
untrustworthy individual, a "radical," and that Johnson was a stable, 
prudent person who could be trusted as Goldwater could not. The Johnson 
campaign avoided throughout any effort to ballyhoo the explicit ADA- 
style Liberalism at the heart of the Great Society programs. It is no 
debate of LiberalConservative issues, after all, to cry "nuclear death" 
when serious issues of foreign policy are raised, when the merits of 
the Test Ban Treaty are discussed, or when the complex guestion is 
broached of what kind of delegated authority 

should exist in regard to tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a 
massive Communist attack. 

The day after the election, Liberals in and out of the Republican 
party were gleeful. James Reston (CFR) wrote in the New York Times of 
November 4th: 

Barry Goldwater has not only lost the Presidential election 
yesterday, but the conservative cause as well. He has wrecked his party 
for a long time to come and is riot even likely to control the 
wreckage . 

Jacob Javits (CFR), who, like the other Republican "moderates," had 
taken a vacation during the campaign, said: 

The election of 1964 should have settled this guestion for a long 
time to come. The overriding issue posed by the GoldwaterMiller ticket 
which was clear to the American people was a call for de-centralization 
- to shift to the state and local levels of government certain 
important federal functions and responsibilities. The size of the 
defeat cannot be seen other than as a repudiation of this concepts 

Having done everything they possibly could to sabotage Goldwater 
and magnify the extent of his defeat, the party's Liberals piously 
maintained that Conservatism had been repudiated and that the party 
must move leftward in the future. Having promoted the desertion of the 
party by many of its own members, the Liberal cligue blamed the debacle 
on Goldwater. Having made the Goldwater defeat as large as they 
possibly could, the Liberal Republicans proceeded to read the 
Conservatives out of the positions of power in the party. That 
Goldwater' s poor showing was in large measure attributable to the 
successful effort to brand him as an irresponsible radical is seen by a 
comparison of his electoral performance with that of Republican 
Congressmen in Conservative areas, men who were just as Conservative as 
Goldwater himself, but who uniformly ran ahead of him. The only 
significant difference between these candidates and Goldwater was that 
they were not subjected to the nonstop smear job that was his daily 
lot. H.R. Gross of Iowa, Richard Roudebush of Indiana, and John 
Ashbrook of Ohio, all strong Conservatives, ran far ahead of Goldwater 
in their respective districts. If Goldwater 's Conservative ideology had 
been the reason for his poor showing, these Congressmen would have run 
more or less even with him, since their ideological position was, on 
all major points, virtually identical with his. But they, in fact, 

gained votes from many people who marked their ballots against 
Goldwater. These results made it clear that not only did Goldwater fail 
to receive a routine Republican vote; he did not even receive a routine 
Conservative vote. 

Congressional and other losses suffered by the GOP in 1964 are 
cited by the Liberals as final proof that a Conservative Republican 
"can't win." It is therefore interesting to compare the outcome of the 
Goldwater campaign with the last election conducted explicitly in the 
"Eisenhower mainstream." In 1958, the Republican party sustained a net 
loss of forty-eight House seats, compared with thirty-eight in 1964. 
The party in 1958 lost a total of thirteen Senate seats, compared with 
two in 1964. In gubernatorial races, the 1958 GOP suffered a net loss 
of five governorships; in 1964 the party actually made a net gain of 
one. In 1958, the party lost 686 state legislative seats, while in 1964 
it lost 541. The truth is, then, the performance was uniformly worse in 
1958 than it was in 1964.6 

The Liberals in the GOP have brought about their own debacles in 
Presidential years. In 1948, for example, when Dewey was supposed to 
win hands down, the GOP lost a staggering total of seventy-five seats 
in the House of Representatives, nine seats in the Senate, and seven 
governorships - in each case a much higher aggregate loss than was 
sustained in 1964. The 1964 election was then, in fact, a 
lesser calamity, not a greater one, than was suffered in either 1948 or 
1958. The fact is that the charges hurled at the head of Goldwater, and 
the implication that "modern" Republicans alone know how to build the 
national party and win elections, simply are not true. Far from being 
able to win, the Liberal Republicans hold championship marks for 
engineering GOP defeats. 

Nineteen sixty-four is also pointed to by Liberal Republicans as 
proof that their "New York strategy, " which seeks to win elections by 
appealing to bloc votes in the large cities of key industrial states, 
is superior to Goldwater 's "Southwest strategy," which seeks to weld 
the traditionally Conservative mid-West to the South-Southwest-West. In 
truth, this strategy was not tested in 1964, since Goldwater was 
running not against a New Englander, as would have been the case had 
JFK not been assassinated, but against a man who was also a Southerner 
and a Westerner. It should also be pointed out that the New York 
strategy has worked only twice since 1936, and in both of those cases a 
highly popular war hero defeated an unappealing egghead. 

There were positive aspects to the 1964 calamity. Grassroots 
participation in Republican politics reached an all-time high; 
Goldwater received contributions from almost 1,500,000 individuals, 
whereas Nixon received contributions from only 40,000 individuals. 
(This is further proof, however, that the "fat cats" who had supported 
Nixon and other Republican candidates in the past abandoned Goldwater.) 
Leftwing groups saw in this rise of grass-roots Conservatism a, 
harbinger of the future. Group Research Incorporated, which kept an eye 
on free-enterprise-oriented groups and individuals for the late Walter 
Reuther, in a year-end report for 1965 disclosed that Conservative 
performance since the Goldwater defeat, rather than diminishing, had 
experienced a marked upward movement and staked out new positions of 
political strength.' The Anti-Defamation League expressed the opininn 

The real accomplishment of the radical right [Conservatism] in 
the 1964 campaign was in the exposure of millions of Americans to its 
message, and new recruits to its membership, and in the reservoir of 

potential recruits being built up . . . through their efforts in the 
Goldwater campaign. g 

By 1964 the Conservative movement had come so far that 
Conservatives were able to accomplish what Taft, on three different 
occasions, had failed to do - win the nomination. The movement, 
however, was not yet large enough to win the election. The campaign 
nonetheless succeeded, albeit in strangled tones, in getting before the 
people some important issues - crime in the streets was the most 
obvious - which subsequently became grade A topics for all respectable 
politicians. During 1964 the Conservatives at least got their foot in 
the political door. 

The real tragedy of the Goldwater campaign was that its leader 
gave up the crusade when he was defeated at the polls. On November 4, 
1964, there were two kinds of Conservatives in America: sad ones and 
mad ones. Some were ready to crawl into their hole, resigned to the 
triumph of collectivism. The mad Conservatives wanted to carry on the 
crusade. Goldwater 's cardinal sins were two: first, that following the 
nominating convention he lost the initiative and went on the defensive; 
secondly, following his defeat he handed the party machinery, which the 
Conservatives had acquired through four years of blood, sweat, and 
tears, back to the Liberals. In U.S. News & World Report of December 
21, 1964, Goldwater was asked how he viewed his future role in the 
Republican party. He stated that it was his intention to : " . . . 
continue to be a working member of the Republican party - not trying to 
dictate anything, just putting my shoulder to the wheel." Thus did 
Goldwater in one sentence "telegraph" to his twenty-seven million 
supporters that he did not intend to fight for Conservative principles 
at the 

January meeting of the Republican National Committee in Chicago. The 
Goldwater abdication in January 1965 did more to hurt the Conservative 
cause and re-establish oneparty government in the United States than 
did the November 1964 election defeat. Out went Dean Burch and in came 
Ray Bliss, "Mr. Pragmatist." Ralph de Toledano wrote in his nationally 
syndicated column of June 29, 1965: 

Like other Liberal Leftist Republicans, Mr. Bliss had made no 
secret of the fact that he cares not a whit about the sensibilities of 
the Conservatives who make up the bulk of the party's workers. 
Conservatives, he contended, have nowhere else to go. 

Goldwater was a reluctant candidate in the first place. He had no 
lust for the power of the Presidency, as had Richard Nixon, nor for the 
incredible amount of work that goes with it. The Conservative movement 
fell in love with Goldwater 's ghostwriters, who turned out his columns, 
speeches, and books. Unfortunately Goldwater was not his ghost writers. 
He was propelled into candidacy by the zeal of the grass-roots 
Conservatives, which he did not fully share. He had no desire to 
capitalize on the great depth of exuberance and loyalty felt by his 
hard-core supporters all over the country. Instead of continuing the 
crusade Goldwater went back to his ham radio. The '64 election was 
water over the dam - Goldwater over the dam. 

The Liberal Republicans, believing that 1964 was a lost cause 
anyway, were willing to let the Conservatives have their fling, knowing 
that it would be disastrous. In its January 24, 1967 issue, Look 
Magazine stated editorially concerning the Republicans: 

In 1964 the overall mood of the convention's professionals was 
that it didn't really matter who was nominated, because no available 
Republican could beat President Johnson. The polls showed a bare 35% 
for Goldwater against Johnson, the same for Nixon, and even less for 
Governors Nelson A. Rockefeller of New 

York and William W. Scranton of Pennsylvania. Also, Goldwater had 
knocked himself out raising money for the party and had won the big 
California primary. The conservatives, furthermore, were screaming for 
"a choice not an echo, " and the moderates correctly assessing the 
middle-road temper of the country (which is now almost universally 
recognized) [sic] but sguabbling over who their leader should be - 
decided to let the conservatives fall on their faces. 

The strategy couldn't have been smarter. Had the Liberal Republicans in 
1964 engineered another minority coup, the Conservatives, particularly 
after Phyllis Schlafly's book, A Choice Not An Echo, would have left 
the Republican party en masse. The smartest thing for the Liberals to 
do was to let the Conservatives have a year, knowing that they could 
not win and that their defeat could be blamed on the Conservative 
philosophy, setting the stage for the re-establishment of a middle-of- 
the-road Republican party. 

The man who benefited most from the Goldwater debacle was Richard 
Nixon. Obviously, Goldwater or someone egually conservative could not 
be nominated in 1968, and GOP Conservatives would just as obviously not 
support any of the Liberal Republicans who had put the knife in their 
candidate's back. Richard Nixon became the only possible candidate 
acceptable to both wings of the party. 

As the 1964 Republican convention approached, Nixon, like an old 
firehorse, and apparently against his better judgment, again began to 
smell smoke. He had lain low, bided his time, and avoided the stop- 
Goldwater movement until late in the game. He had made it "perfectly 
clear" that he was not taking sides in the Goldwater vs. Rockefeller 
primaries. Then, as Stephen Hess and David Broder recall in their book, 
The Republican Establishment: 

Just as suddenly, Nixon switched sides and became the self- 
appointed leader of the stop-Goldwater forces. A week after California 
had voted, on June 9th, he flew to Cleveland for the 

national Governors' Conference .... Nixon . . . astounded everyone 
by attacking Goldwater at a press conference. Citing the Senator's view 
of the United Nations and Soviet-American relations, his suggestion 
that social security be made voluntary, that the Tennessee Valley 
Authority be sold to private interests, and civil rights enforcement be 
left to the states, and a national right-to-work law be enacted, Nixon 
said, "It would be a tragedy for the Republican party in the event that 
Senator Goldwater 's views, as previously stated, were not challenged 
and repudiated. " 9 

Nixon was trying, according to Hess and Broder, to set up Romney as a 
stalking horse in a last desperate effort to produce a convention 
deadlock from which he, Nixon, would emerge as the nominee. 

On June 15, 1964, the Herald Tribune News Service reported this 
repudiation by Nixon of his June 9th statement that Goldwater 's views 
would be a "tragedy" for the party: 

Richard M. Nixon did everything possible Tuesday to join the 
Goldwater camp here except put on a Goldwater cowboy hat for the 

benefit of photographers .... [Nixon] declared that the Senator from 
Arizona really is "mainstream" of the party now that "he has become a 
national rather than a regional candidate." 

Hess and Broder explain Nixon's broken field running this way: 

. . . privately, the last two weeks of June, 1964, Nixon began to 
readjust his sights from the 1964 nomination to the 1968 .... Nixon 
evolved a new role for himself: the apostle of party unity who would 
campaign doggedly for the ticket in 1964 and for all Republican 
candidates in 1966, as a way of rebuilding his political capital for 

It could be that Nixon really did not want a stalemate at the 
convention that would cause it to turn to him with the nomination. He 
had known since 1960 that his time was 1968. not 1964. His brief flurry 
of anti-Goldwaterism may 

have been a show to keep his credentials in order with party Liberals. 
Nixon knew that Goldwater was "doomed to defeat, " but Nixon 
nevertheless campaigned tirelessly for the Arizonan, knowing that he 
would thus become the only possible candidate who would not divide the 
party in 1968, since most other Republican leaders were sitting out the 
campaign . 

One week after the '64 election, Nixon told Warren Duffee of UPI 
that the Republican Party had "gone too far right," and now "most of 
all needs some discipline." Nixon continued: "The Republican party's 
national position must represent the responsible right and the 
responsible ultraliberal . " The future position of the GOP, Nixon said, 
"must be the center .... The formula [for victory] should be the 
Eisenhower-Nixon formula, not because it is more to the left, but 
because it is the right position . . . . " Nixon placed himself 
sguarely in the "center," but failed to comment on the fact that the 
middle of the road had been moving Leftward for thirty-five years. He 
did, however, state: "I will discourage - I will not tolerate - any 
activity on behalf of myself by anyone else for 1968." 1' Sure, sure. 
But when Goldwater dropped the leadership torch, Nixon was Johnnyon- 
the-spot to pick it up. In an article in the New York Times of February 
14, 1965, the following comment was made: 

When Barry Goldwater consented to the removal of the man of his 
choice as Republican National Chairman and renounced his own 
Presidential aspirations, the leadership of the Republican party lay 
there for the taking. 

But not for long. Richard M. Nixon has firmly grasped the 
leadership role, which being unofficial, can become anything he wants 
to make it. He intends, apparently, to make much of it. 

Be Sincere Whether You Mean It Or Not 

With the 1964 elections now history, the Nixon Express began to 
build up steam while its engineer carefully studied its 1968 timetable. 
Nixon's law firm allowed him seemingly unlimited time for world travel 
to keep up his reputation as an expert on foreign affairs, and for 
campaigning on behalf of GOP candidates. Hess and Broder observed: 

For major chunks of each year he circles the globe ... on 
personal fact-finding junkets .... For other parts of each year he 
circles the United States . . . restoring his credentials as a 
political leader. 1 

During the 1966 Congressional elections, Nixon made appearances in 
thirty-five states for eighty-six Republican nominees. In addition he 
raised large sums of money to fill candidates' campaign coffers. 

Although Nixon was campaigning for others, he made LBJ - the man 
most likely to be his opponent two years hence the target of his 
assault. Typical was this Nixon statement: 

Every time a housewife goes into a supermarket today, she is 
faced with the High Cost of Johnson .... Every time a businessman 
tries to make a loan that would produce more jobs, he runs into 
interest rates that are really the High Cost of Johnson .... Every 
time a young couple tries to buy a home these days, the door is slammed 
in their faces by the High Cost of Johnson. 2 

Ironically, the Democrats will probably make "the High Cost of Nixon" a 
major campaign theme in 1972. 

11 A A l 

In the off-year elections the Republicans picked up forty-seven 
seats in the House of Representatives, three Senate seats, eight 
governorships, and 540 seats in state legislatures. The Elephant that 
everybody had been ready to consign to the graveyard two years before 
was back in fettle and optimistically looking forward to the '68 
jousting match with the rival Donkey. And Richard Nixon received much 
of the credit for the comeback. Candidates for whom he campaigned ran 
much better, statistically, than those for whom he did not appear. What 
is more, Nixon, the old master poker player, acguired more IOUs than a 
riverboat gambler. These political IOUs all had a 1968 due date. 

Nixon had to do well in the primaries, as he admitted, to remove 
the "loser" image which dogged him. His main opposition in the New 
Hampshire kickoff primary was George Romney, who conveniently cut his 
own political throat by telling newspapermen he had been brainwashed on 
the Vietnam guestion. Polls showed Romney doing so miserably that he 
dropped out of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the field to Nixon. 
The unopposed victory was just the psychological boost the Nixon 
campaign needed. After that it was all downhill to Miami. 

In his guest for the 1968 nomination Nixon assumed the 
Conservatives had nowhere else to go, and courted the Left. By 
attending the funeral of civil rights agitator Martin Luther King, Jr. 
along with virtually every other presidential office seeker and black 
nationalist, Nixon made it clear that he was willing to crawl for the 
Negro bloc vote. Certainly Nixon with his contacts had access to the 

information in the FBI file on King, which reveals King's close 
association with Communists. 

Nixon, who had called the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, described by 
two former presidents of the American Bar Association as ten per cent 
civil rights and ninety per cent government control, a "great step 
forward; "3 capitalized on 

the hysteria following King's death to push another civil rights bill 
through Congress. According to the Los Angeles Times of March 24, 1968, 
NAACP member Nixon had been working behind the scenes to support a 
forced housing bill before the King assassination. According to Human 
Events, Nixon played a strategic role in getting Congress to adopt the 
hastily drawn 1968 Civil Rights Act. He not only pressed for adoption 
of the "open housing" section, which had never undergone proper 
committee hearings, but he had been urging House Republicans to accept 
the Senate version of the Civil Rights Bill without any alterations. 
Such Nixon lieutenants as Representative Clark MacGregor of Minnesota 
helped to persuade House Republicans to accept the Senate amendments in 
toto. Nixon's telephone call to Representative John Anderson of 
Illinois, swing man on the important House Rules Committee, turned out 
to be crucial to the fate of the Senate bill: 

The rules committee had appeared deadlocked over whether to send 

the Senate bill to a Senate-House conference, where House members could 
rework the legislation, or to send the bill to the House floor for a 

vote with a gag rule that would prevent any amendment whatsoever. Nixon 

phoned Anderson and urged him to send the bill to the House floor for a 

quick vote. Under pressure from Nixon and the tense conditions in the 
country following the murder of King, Anderson buckled. 4 

The Insiders and their puppets know that during the psychological shock 
of a disaster the public is willing to accept legislation that would 
not otherwise be adopted. 

In order to capture Negro support in his 1968 quest for the 
Presidential nomination, Nixon formed an alliance with the 
revolutionary black power fanatics of CORE. CORE has adopted the forty- 
year old Communist cry for a separate Black Nation, and CORE'S retiring 
chairman, Floyd McKissick, the violent leftwing Socialist who has 

nonviolence, advocated not welfare for Negroes but a complete 
redistribution of the wealth, beginning with government subsidization 
of Negro-owned businesses. This has been mislabeled "black capitalism," 
and is a subtle perversion of the only true answer to the Negroes' 
economic plight, namely, the genuine free enterprise system. Liberal 
columnists Evans and Novak reported: 

In recent days, Nixon has been in contact with CORE leaders Floyd 
McKissick and Roy Innis [McKissick 's successor] through intermediaries. 
Thus, their surprising agreement on economic black power could turn out 
to be Nixon's first real breakthrough into the Negro leaderships 

CORE then came out in praise of Nixon for having seen "the relevance of 
black power, " and claimed that Nixon is the "only Presidential 
candidate who is moving in the direction of CORE'S program. "6 What 
Nixon and CORE advocate is not the channeling of private capital into 
Negro-owned or Negro-managed businesses, but nonprofit co-ops financed 
by government loans. Tax-free, nonprofit co-ops, financed by the 

taxpayers, do not constitute capitalism. What Nixon mistakenly calls 
"Black Capitalism" is in reality black communes or Black Soviets. 

In a further quest to attract support of the bloc vote of Liberal 
Negroes, Parade Magazine of June 16, 1968, revealed that Nixon 
considered Edward Brooke of Massachusetts as his running mate. However, 
Brooke had decided to throw in his lot with Nelson Rockefeller. Liberal 
columnist Carl Rowan, who served in high appointive capacities in the 
Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, reported that leftward forces in 
Massachusetts : 

. . . regard Brooke as one of their own - infiltrating the enemy 
camp - and making them like it. They regard the Massachusetts Senate 
race as a contest to see whether an ideological Democrat can go all the 
way to the top in a Republican masquerade.? 

The great puppet show of 1968 was the Nixon-Rockefeller contest. 
Many an astute observer believes that Rockefeller may have entered the 
Presidential race at a time when he had little chance of winning, 
solely to bring some badly needed publicity to the Republican party's 
race and to solidify Conservative backing for Nixon. Rocky and Richard 
were not the enemies they were pictured as being. ADA member Stewart 
Alsop wrote in his book, Nixon and Rockefeller: 

There are in fact, it should be noted, no sharp ideological 
differences between Rockefeller and Nixon, as there were between Dewey 
and Taft and Eisenhower and Taf t . When Rockefeller worked in Washington 
for the first Eisenhower Administration, he often found an ally in 
Nixon on such issues as foreign aid. The difference is really a 
difference of style and background and approach to politics : . . . 
[Emphasis added.] $ 

Nixon's friendly biographer, Earl Mazo, says that in Washington "Nixon 
and Rockefeller became good friends and supported each other 
consistently . . . ."9 After the 1956 election Rockefeller wrote Nixon 
on November 7th: "... under you and the President the Republican 
party is now emerging, at home and abroad, as the great liberal party 
of the future." 1° Joseph Alsop, brother of Stewart and also a member 
of the ADA, wrote in a 1963 column on the then upcoming election: 

What the Republican politicians call the "old New York crowd" 
will almost certainly stick by Nelson Rockefeller as long as propriety 
and good manners require them to do so. But it is a very good guess 
that men like former Governor Thomas E. Dewey, and the financial 
leaders who used to work with Dewey, are already thinking hard about 
where they can go if Rockefeller does not make the grade. And it is an 
equally good guess that they are thinking about going to Nixon. 1 i 

Then there was the little matter of Nixon moving into 

Rocky ' s apartment house and going to work for the law firm used by 

Chase Manhattan for its trust accounts. 

Rockefeller may have held some hope that he could actually wrest 
the candidacy from his own puppet, but as the. Wall Street Journal's 
Vermont Royster observed: 

Indeed, Mr. Rockefeller's initial half-hearted campaign seemed 
only to demonstrate that he expected to lose to Mr. Nixon. The governor 
drifted along almost aimlessly while his vaunted staff became 

disorganized. Meanwhile, Mr. Nixon sailed on serenely, making no 
mistakes that could give the New Yorker an opening .... 

It was only after Sen. Robert Kennedy's assassination June 5 that 
Mr. Rockefeller's campaign got rolling. By then, only a slim chance 
existed of stopping Nixon, but Rocky spared nothing spending millions 
for national advertising, and pushing himself through a frenetic cross- 
country campaign .... 12 

The Rockefeller campaign suggested from the beginning that the New York 
governor was acting as a stalking horse for his ostensible opponent, 
Richard Nixon. First there was his reluctance to become a candidate at 
a date when he had time to forge a successful campaign. Then, when he 
did begin to flirt with the idea of getting in, he soon backed off, 
claiming that his old ardor for the Presidency was no longer there and 
that the rank and file wanted Nixon. He would not, he said, divide the 
party. Only after the primaries had come and gone, and Nixon had the 
nomination sewed up, did Rocky enter the race, spending money like a 
Rockefeller and keeping the Republicans in the headlines. 

It was an eloguent performance. Nixon had to have an enemy on the 
Left to make him a salable commodity to the Conservatives. The Insiders 
knew very well that if Nelson Rockefeller came out against Hell, many 
Conservatives would begin to find redeeming gualities in Satan. Thus, 
if Rocky didn't like Nixon's Conservatism, it must be a very good brand 
of Conservatism indeed. Republican Conservatives 

began to salivate after Nixon as if he were to the Right of Barry 
Goldwater . 

At Miami the country was treated to the picture of a 
superconf ident Richard Nixon who seemed not to have a worry in the 
world. He didn't. And the biggest tip-off was the sight of Nixon's 
supercompetent professional staff competing with Rocky 's bumbling 
amateurs - a group crawling with just the sort of high-pressure New 
Left types guaranteed to offend the delegates. There may be some who 
really believe that Nelson Rockefeller couldn't put together a team of 
first-rate professionals, but they must be political kindergartners . 

As the Elephant Herd assembled in Miami Beach for the guadrennial 
ceremonial nominating dance, Richard Nixon knew he had the prize in the 
bag. Relaxing before the festivities started, Nixon called a press 
conference in which he repudiated his past anti-Communist stands. A 
mere two weeks before the rape of Czecho-Slovakia by the Soviets and 
their henchmen, New York Times headlines blared: "Nixon Says He Has 
Eased Views On Communist Bloc Since 1960." Mr. Nixon explained to the 
newsmen at Miami that the Communist Conspiracy was no longer an 
unyielding, monolithic force. In 1960, the candidate maintained, "the 
Communist world was a monolithic world. Today it is a split world, 
schizophrenic, with very great diversity." 

As Americans died in Vietnam, Nixon even said he believed that 
the "era of confrontation" with the Communist world had ended, ushering 
in a new "era of negotiations with the Soviet Union . . . and . . . the 
leaders of the next superpower, Communist China . . . . " 

In subscribing to the new myths and ignoring the old realities, 
Richard Nixon announced that the harsh words he had for the Communists 
in his 1960 acceptance speech are today "irrelevant." And, he added, 
"as the facts change, any intelligent man does change his approaches to 
the problems . 

It does not mean that he is an opportunist. It means only that he is a 
pragmatist . " 

At the convention the Nixonites grabbed Conservative issues lock, 
stock, and barrel. Unfortunately they did not adopt Conservative 
solutions, only the issues. But Conservative Republicans who should 
have known better loved it. The object, however, was to propagandize 
the Conservative wing of the Party, quietly pat its wounded ego, and 
sell it a gilded brick. That brick was labeled Party Unity. 

The way the script was written, the disunity of 1964 was no 
longer the fault of those disloyal "Liberals" who betrayed and 
sabotaged Barry Goldwater, but that of the twenty-seven million 
ideological dervishes who had run screaming onto the swords of Lyndon's 
legions, believing that their sacrifice would somehow help to re- 
establish our Constitution and the American system of free enterprise. 
Now, with a Liberal candidate in prospect, it was the turncoats of 1964 
who were leading the cry for unity and pragmatism. With Wallace in the 
race, the Liberals realized that they must have Conservative support to 
win. "Pragmatism!" they cried. And Conservative Republicans echoed: 
"Pragmatism! " 

It was all very cordial. Liberals even permitted the former 
Conservative spokesman, a fellow named Goldwater, to support their plea 
for unity before the convention. It was like calling the victim of a 
mugging as a character witness for his assailants - not so much 
offering proof of the victim's compassion as providing evidence that 
when the muggers struck they hit the man in the head harder than anyone 
had realized at the time. Conservatives were now welcomed back into the 
Republican Party. It was like being met at the door of your own home by 
a hospitable burglar and invited to come in for a drink. Curiously, 
Republican Conservatives seemed elated by such courtly treatment from 
Party Liberals, and gratefully accepted the incredible invitation. 
Thus, the Republican Right was forgiven for the 

"crime of 1964" and its sins were washed away in the soothing waters of 
Party Unity. It was quite a trick to get the Conservative lambs to lie 
down with the Liberal lions while their cage was being constructed, but 
that was precisely what happened. As the Insiders scripted a soothing 
of Party Conservatives to keep them away from the Wallace campaign, 
they also moved to keep the Party's non-Establishment Liberals (who 
also take these conventions seriously) from committing hara-kiri at the 
thought that the Republican Party might campaign on Conservative 
principles. Indeed, the scenario called for monumental staging. 

The cast of this pragmatic extravaganza contained a protagonist 
on the Left (for the Liberals to cheer and the Conservatives to hiss), 
a Rightist knight of the silver screen (to make Conservative hearts go 
pitter-pat and to horrify unsophisticated Liberals), and a centrist (an 
experienced and highly competent professional, skilled at uniting the 
Party in a shotgun marriage to last until the second week in November) . 
The centrist, as you know, got the girl in the end. 

At Miami, Mr. Nixon was the one, on the first ballot. And his 
acceptance speech proved a masterpiece of pragmatism superbly eloquent 
and totally noncommittal. He sounded to the casual listener like a 
combination of Billy Graham calling for a crusade against sin, John 
Wayne delivering a Fourth of July speech to the American Legion, Pat 
O'Brien exhorting Notre Dame to "win one for the Gipper, " George 
Wallace at his ironic best, and Martin Luther King ascending the 
mountain. The speech was delivered in terms that drew positive 
reactions from both Liberals and Conservatives without offending 
either. Such an accomplishment is more difficult than passing an 
elephant through the eye of a donkey, and one must admire Mr. Nixon's 

oratorical expertise if not his anti-ideology. The speech was amazing. 

Nixon said that to the "new" Republican Party the enemy of liberty is 
not collectivism itself, but the mismanagement of collectivism. 
Generalities abounded. Although the address was far different in tone 
from Nixon's acceptance speech of 1960, in which he had attempted to 
outpromise the Democrats in detail, the theme was the same. The Wall 
Street Journal had dubbed the 1960 acceptance a wedding of the "Welfare 
State to fiscal responsibility." That theme was repeated in 1968 - but 
this time Nixon hedged his bet by attacking the conseguences of the 
very collectivism he proposed. 

Richard Nixon knew that in 1968 the mood of the nation had become 
increasingly Conservative; Americans were sick of court decisions 
handcuffing the police, of the scandalridden "War on Poverty, " of 
jogging inflation, and of the looting and burning of our cities by 
psychotic Black Nationalists and revolutionary delinquents. As 
America's pre-eminent reader of trends, he devoted his 1968 acceptance 
speech to an attempt to steal a march on these issues - all raised by 
George Wallace - just as he had attempted in 1960 to steal a march on 
the issues raised by John Kennedy. The difference, as always with Mr. 
Nixon, was a matter of solutions: This time he was arguing that his 
alchemists could cook up a totally new brand of federal collectivism 
guaranteed to cure welfare problems, racial hostility, violence in the 
streets, and probably warts. 

Richard Nixon did say many of the right things in that speech - 
and he said them beautifully. He talked of the American Revolution 
being the only true and continuing revolution, and of what private 
initiative has done for our country. He spoke of law and order and 
America's declining world position. But by reading the address, rather 
than merely listening to it, one discovers that he conveyed many 
illusory impressions. The speech implied that we would recapture the 
Pueblo and free its crew, but made no specific 

commitment. It sounded as if Nixon would stop the war in Vietnam, but 
it said nothing about winning it. It dwelt on law and order, but 
promised only a war on "organized crime . . . loan sharks . . . numbers 
racketeers . . . filth peddlers and the narcotics peddlers . . . . " 
with no mention of the Communists and their Black Nationalist comrades, 
who are making good their promises of guerrilla warfare. It also seemed 
to say that Nixon would cut federal spending and taxes; but again, this 
was only an implication made by the tone of the rhetoric. 

Here was a candidate who even seemed to be promising an end to 
foreign aid - the very man who had said in his article of October 1967 
in the Council on Foreign Relations' magazine, Foreign Affairs, that he 
sought a new Marshall Plan to dump even vaster ''sums of foreign aid 
into bottomless Asia. 

The Republican platform committee labored mightily and brought 
forth an ideological mouse. It was the perfect platform for Nixon to 
stand on. One wag remarked that anyone from Mao Tse-tung to Attila the 
Hun could comfortably run on it. It made virtually no commitments. It 
did courageously declare the Party for good and against evil, but it 
was very hazy about how to tell which is which. Certainly the platform 
tended to be far more Liberal than even Nixon's acceptance speech, and 
the Party "moderates" called it highly "progressive." James Reston of 
the New York Times, gloating over the platform's abandonment of 
Conservatism, wrote: 

. . . [the Republicans] have learned from their disastrous 

campaign of 1964. Nobody is putting party ideology above party 
unity, not even Goldwater. In fact, Goldwater, Reagan, Nixon 
and Rockefeller have all accepted the objectives of a party 
platform that Humphrey or even McCarthy could accept. 

Ah yes, and Mao and Attila too. 

Following Miami, Nixon shifted gears into the smoothest, 

most professional, most public relations-oriented campaign ever 

conducted. One of the developments in modern political life that has 

concerned both Democrats and Republicans is the rise of public 

relations firms and their brainchild, television campaigning. TV, it is 

generally felt, puts a premium on wit and good looks at the expense of 

intellectual depth and the discussion of issues. Ugly old Abe Lincoln, 

it is often noted, would be at a distinct disadvantage against one of 

today's slick Madison Avenue products. Now, everything is charisma - 

that undefinable "it" that JFK had and HHH and RMN don't. 

Whether you approve or disapprove of TV as a political weapon 
depends upon how well your candidate uses the medium. The Republicans 
loved it in 1952 and 1956 when "father-image" Eisenhower's "sincerity" 
came across better than Baby Dumpling Stevenson's egghead intellect. In 
1960, however, the tables were turned as the Nixon-Kennedy TV debates 
turned out looking like robust and suntanned Charles Atlas versus a 
pale and puny Count Dracula in need of a shave. 

In 1968, Nixon realized that he must learn how to turn TV into an 
asset or face another defeat. In Oregon Nixon was asked what he thought 
of artificially created political images. He replied: 

People are much less impressed with image arguments than are 
columnists, commentators, and pollsters. And I for one rejected 
the advice of the public relations experts who say that I've got to 
sit by the hour and watch myself. The American people may not 

like my face but they're going to listen to what I have to say. 

With that he prepared to launch the most expensive public relations- 
and-TV-dominated campaign in the history of American elections. 

Law partner Leonard Garment put together Nixon's staff of high- 
powered image builders . They included Harry 

Treleaven, who had run ideas up the J. Walter Thompson flagpole for 
eighteen years for such clients as Pan American, RCA, and Ford; Frank 
Shakespeare, who had spent a like number of years at CBS; and Paul 
Keyes, a producer of "Laugh-In," who was supposed to convey the 
impression that Nixon had a sense of humor.* The make-up man from the 
Johnny Carson show was hired to make sure that Nixon never again went 
before the cameras looking like a baggyeyed Count Dracula with 
insomnia . 

With TV, the image is everything. And the image of the man need 
have no relation to the real man. The candidate becomes a product to be 
peddled like soap or instant mashed potatoes. The bright-colored box 
may belie what is within. Raymond Price, a Nixon speechwriter and TV 
advisor, was very blunt about this in a memo to Nixon: 

It's not what's there that counts, it's what's projected - and 
carrying it one step further, it's not what he projects, but rather 
what the voter receives. It's not the man we have to change, but rather 
the received impression. And this impression often depends more on the 
medium and its use than it does on the candidate himself. 13 

Probably the most fascinating account of the NixonHumphrey 
campaign yet produced is The Selling of the President 1968, by Joe 
McGinniss of thePhiladelphia Inguirer (until recently owned by Nixon's 
close friend and appointee as Ambassador to the Court of St. James', 
Walter Annenberg) .14 The book jacket describes McGinniss' mission: 

Wondering if a presidential candidate could be advertised and 
sold like a car or a can of peas, Joe McGinniss informally joined the 
Nixon forces at the very early stages of the campaign. Around the 
clock, day-to-day, he lived with the technicians, ghost writers, 
experts, and pollsters. 

*Treleaven's private opinion of Nixon, quoted by Joe McGinness in his 
The Selling of the President 1968, page 56, was: " . .he comes across 
as such an utter bore. I don't think the man has had an original 
observation in his life." 

Whether it was an advertising concept meeting, a television 
taping, a panel selection, an "ethnic specialists' " discussion; 
whether at a hysterical moment of anticipated triumph, or a quiet 
moment of misgiving and self-doubt, Joe McGinniss was there, listening, 
asking - eliciting some of the most candid, truly human disclosures and 
insights ever made about our electoral process. 

It seems incredible, but apparently nobody on the Nixon 

staff made any attempt to discover whether McGinniss was 

friendly or hostile before admitting him into the inner 

sanctum. They know now; McGinniss 's book was on top of 

the best-seller list for many months running, and it presents a 

most unflattering picture of Nixon and his campaign team. 

McGinniss, it turned out, was a very nasty Liberal, a Eugene 

McCarthyite, and quite possibly a spy for the Humphrey 

campaign. But despite his foaming-at-the-mouth Liberalism, 

McGinniss' book contains some gems of conversations he sat 

in on that reveal the total cynicism of the Nixon campaign. 

In preparing for the all-important part that TV would play 
in the campaign, Harry Treleaven wrote: 

There'll be few opportunities for logical persuasion, which is 
all right - because probably more people vote for irrational, emotional 
reasons than professional politicians suspect. 15 

"I am not going to barricade myself into a television studio and 
make this an antiseptic campaign, " Nixon told a press conference 
shortly after his nomination, as he prepared to do just that. Six 
months earlier, Nixon had said, "We're going to build this whole 
campaign around television. You fellows [his TV advisors] just tell me 
what you want me to do and I'll do it." 16 The Nixon campaign relied 
heavily on ten one-hour specials, spread around the country, that 
featured an audience of shills from the local Republican clubs. They 
were coached to scream like crazy every time Nixon answered a guestion 
and then to mob him at the end of the show to give 

the viewers the impression that the candidate was just oozing with 
charisma. Reporters were never allowed in the studio lest they report 
that the shows were staged. Staff members cynically referred to the 
shills as "the applause machine." The semi-shills who fed Nixon the 
questions always included one Negro (two might be offensive and not to 
have one was unthinkable) , a housewife, a businessman, a Liberal, and a 

working man. In most cases all went smoothly because Nixon had well- 
rehearsed answers to all the standard questions, which he had answered 
hundreds of times since New Hampshire. In fact, Nixon did turn himself 
into a veritable human computer, with stored answers for the most 
common questions, such as: "Is there a "new' Nixon?" Response: "My 
answer is yes, there is a new Nixon, if you are talking in terms of new 
ideas for the new world and the America we live in." Garry Wills 
described the Nixon human computer process: 

. . . .The tapes were sent to Washington, where computers typed 
"personalized" answers - one paragraph per concern, dialed out of a 
bank of 70 stock answers to the most common guestions. That dialing 
process was a perfect extension of the man we watched on television. 
Bud Wilkinson would ask the same guestions, or a panel would, over and 
over. There would be a pause (the internal dialing), a signaled 
mechanical frown of concern and "personalized" typing (print-out on the 
face - still fuzzy, that machine has never been perfected), and Nixon 
would finally deliver, in his tight resonant voice - like Disney's 
Audio-Animatronic figure of Lincoln, improvising Gettysburg Addresses 
to a ballet of programmed gestures - one of the 70 paragraphs stored in 
this walking memory bank. 17 

But something went awry in Philadelphia, where local call-in show host 
Jack McKinney, a non-shill, was accidentally asked to be one of the 
questioners. McGinniss describes the repartee: 

Jack McKinney did not lead with his right but he threw a much 
stiffer jab than Nixon had been expecting: Why are you so reluctant to 
comment on Vietnam this year when in 1952, faced with a similar issue 
in Korea, you were so free with your partisan remarks? 

Not a crippling question, but there was an undertone of 
unfriendliness to it. Worse, it had been put to him in professional 
form. Nixon had been expecting, maybe, a reguest for comment on the 
war, to which he would have given the standard With-Peace-Negotiations- 
At-Such-A-Delicate-Stage reply. But here was a guestion which assumed 
that reply and requested that it be defended, in light of a seeming 
contradiction. Nixon stepped back, a bit off balance. This sort of 
thing threatened the stability of the whole format; the basis being the 
hypothesis that Nixon could appear to risk all by going live while in 
fact risking nothing by facing the loose syntax and predictable, sloppy 
thrusts of amateurs. 

Nixon threw up an evasive flurry. But the grin was gone from his 
face. Not only did he know now that he would have to be careful of 
McKinney, he was forced to wonder, for the first time, what he might 
encounter from the others. 18 

After Nixon had easily fielded standard guestions from the Negro, the 
businessman, the housewife, etc., McKinney got his second shot: 

It was McKinney 's turn again: Why was Nixon refusing to appear on 
any of the news confrontation shows such as Meet the Press? Why would 
he face the public only in staged settings such as this, where the 
questions were almost certain to be worded generally enough to allow 
him any vague sort of answer he wanted to give? Where the presence of 
the cheering studio audience was sure to intimidate any guestioner who 
contemplated true engagement? Where Nixon moved so guickly from one 
questioner to the next that he eliminated any possibility of follow-up, 
any chance for true discussion . . . ? 

"I've done those quiz shows, Mr. McKinney. I've done them until 
they were running out of my ears." There was no question on one point: 
Richard Nixon was upset. 

Staring hard at McKinney, he grumbled something about why 
there should be more fuss about Hubert Humphrey not having press 
conferences and less about him and Meet the Press . 

. . . The audience cheered. Suddenly, Nixon, perhaps sensing a 
weakness in McKinney where he had feared that none existed, perhaps 
realizing he had no choice, surely buoyed up by the cheers, decided to 
slug it out. 

"Go ahead," he said, gesturing, "I want you to follow up." 

McKinney came back creditably, using the word "amorphous" and 
complaining that viewers were being asked to support Nixon for 
President on the basis of "nothing but a wink and a smile" particularly 
in regard to Vietnam. 

"Now, Mr. McKinney, maybe I haven't been as specific . . . . " 
and Nixon was off on a thorough rephrasing of his Vietnam nonposition, 
which, while it contained no substance - hence, could not accommodate 
anything new - sounded, to uninitiates, like a public step forward. The 
audience was ecstatic. Outnumbered, two hundred forty-one to one, 
McKinney could do nothing but smile and shake, his head. 19 

The big telethon on the Sunday before the election was even more 
rigged. A battery of girls were brought in to accept questions by 
phone, but the questions Nixon was to answer had been selected and 
rehearsed in advance. Questions from callers approximating the pre- 
selected questions were then matched so that emcee Bud Wilkinson could 
say something like: Mr. Nixon, Mrs. J.J. Jones of Pompano Beach, 
Florida, would like to know what you intend to do about pensions for 
starving winos. Then Mr. Nixon could reply: "I'm glad you asked that 
question, Mrs. Jones. [You bet he was - after spending all that time 
rehearsing.] Let me make it perfectly clear blah, blah, blah the usual 
doubletalk . "2 ° It all sounded very spontaneous, although it was a 
complete show biz fraud. Anyway, the campaign fraud only cost $25 
million and that was given voluntarily. The cost to taxpayers in broken 
campaign promises has been considerably higher. 

Part way through the campaign the image makers began to doubt 
that they were successfully creating an image of the "new Nixon" as 
warm and personable. They decided on a 

new format for TV spots that featured Nixon's voice behind a series of 
still pictures rapidly flashing on the screen. McGinniss describes the 
new strategy: 

The words would be the same ones Nixon always used - the words of 
the acceptance speech. But they would all seem fresh and lively because 
a series of still pictures would flash on the screen while Nixon spoke. 
If it were done right, it would permit Treleaven to create a Nixon 
image that was entirely independent of the words. Nixon would say his 
same old tiresome things but no one would have to listen. The words 
would become Muzak. Something pleasant and lulling in the background. 
The flashing pictures would be carefully selected to create the 
impression that somehow Nixon represented competence, respect for 
tradition, serenity, faith that the American people were better than 
people anywhere else, and that all these problems others shouted about 
meant nothing in a land blessed with the tallest buildings, strongest 
armies, biggest factories, cutest children, and rosiest sunsets in the 

world. Even better: through association with the pictures, Richard 
Nixon could become these very things. 21 

Eugene Jones, the man who created these ads with the laughing, 
playing children and the glorious sunsets and Richard Nixon, told 
McGinniss that he was leaving the country after the election because he 
didn't think this was any place to raise children. 

The cynicism of building a phony TV image was matched by the 
hypocrisy of Nixon's stand on the issues. Long regarded as America's 
number one political weathervane, Nixon constantly promised "new 
leadership" while at the same time using polls to decide which 
positions were the most popular. In a column titled "Nixon Reborn - In 
A Poll's Image," Joseph Alsop wrote: 

In this year's lurid presidential campaign, one of the most 
important figures behind the scenes has certainly been Joseph Bachelder 
of Princeton, N.J. 

Bachelder is a poller with a small planning-and-analysis staff of 
his own. He also has access, by contract, to Dr. George Gallup' s 
nationwide polling apparatus and to the Gallup machinery for sorting 
and computation in Princeton. Long ago, Bachelder became Richard M. 
Nixon's personal poller, and Bachelder has since been taking polls for 
Nixon, almost nonstop, in depth and on a very big scale. 

The results that Bachelder has passed on to Nixon are among the 
most closely guarded secrets of the Republican candidate. Yet it is 
transparently obvious that the former Vice President's campaign 
strategy is heavily poll-dominated. 

In order to see why this is so, you have only to glance at the 
published results of other, less secretive pollers, such as Louis 
Harris. There is a near-perfect fit between Harris's most recent 
findings about the mood of the country and the things that Nixon and 
Spiro T. Agnew have been saying and doing since they took the stump. 

Another example of the Nixon campaign cynicism was the 
candidate's making Attorney General Ramsey Clark a main target for his 
campaign rehetoric on law and order. Of course Clark deserved every 
brickbat and more, but privately Nixon thought very highly of him. 
Richard Harris wrote in the New Yorker 

Apparently Nixon himself did not enjoy his attacks on the 
Attorney General. "Ramsey Clark is really a fine fellow," he said to 
his closest associates during the campaign. "And he's done a good job." 
In view of one of the candidate's top advisers, the candidate had felt 
compelled to use this "simplistic approach" to stir up the voters. 

The two CFR candidates, Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, were 
remarkably alike in their views, despite the "image" of being poles 
apart ideologically. Neither deviated from the official CFR foreign 
policy of "internationalism," by which America is committed to opposing 
Communism with so-called Democratic Socialism. Both Nixon and Humphrey 
prided themselves on being staunch supporters of 

large foreign aid giveaways. This is the cornerstone of the foreign 
policy of the CFR, as it pours money into the coffers of the 
international bankers and their law firms. 

Both candidates have always gone right down the line in support 
of the infamous "House that Hiss Built," the United Nations. Both Nixon 
and Humphrey have advocated the establishment of a UN army that would 

supersede our own. Both RMN and HHH have supported United World 
Federalists and Atlantic Union world government schemes. 

While Nixon in the past had talked a hard line against Communism, 
in his press conference at the outset of the Miami convention, he had 
reversed this stand. This brought him into a position similar to 
Humphrey's on resistance to Communism. 

Hubert Humphrey has been a leading advocate of the welfare state 
at home, which Nixon at one time opposed. But by 1960, Nixon had done 
an about-face on the welfare state, though he still paid lip service to 
the free enterprise system. Nixon justifies the welfare state in 
Conservative terms while Humphrey does it in Liberalese. 

Humphrey and Nixon have both supported all civil rights bills, 
both the good ones and the bad ones. It was ironic to see NAACP member 
Nixon campaign through the South as a champion of home rule and a 
staunch opponent of school busing. 

Given these close parallels in their records, how is it that 
Nixon is widely believed to be a moderate Conservative, while Humphrey 
is considered a guite radical Liberal? Much of it goes back to their 
earlier political careers, when these labels had a great deal more 
validity. Many ardent supporters of both men remember them as they 
were, not as they are. Humphrey has tailored his appeal to suit labor 
union and minority elements. Nixon's target has always been "middle 
America," now generally known as "the silent majority." Therefore, both 
men have often said substantially the same 

thing, but they have couched it in very different language. A Nixon 
campaign speech and- a Humphrey campaign speech were as different as 
winter and summer. In general, so were the audiences. But when George 
Wallace claimed that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between 
the two candidates, he was more accurate than he realized. Wallace was 
referring to the two parties' stands on forced integration, but that 
was not the real story. The real story lay in the CFR control over both 
candidates. Rhetoric aside, they stood for virtually the same thing and 
both were run by the same bosses in New York. One was working the 
Liberal side of the street and the other was working the Conservative 
side of the same street. 

While the Establishment Insiders had everything to gain and 
nothing to lose, no matter which candidate won, it was obvious in 1968 
that Humphrey was only a foil for Nixon (although he almost beat him) . 
The "big money" went behind Nixon the Republican just as it had gone 
behind Johnson the Democrat four years earlier. The March 1970 issue of 
Fortune (page 104) disclosed: 

After Nixon's nomination, national-level Republican committees 
spent nearly $25 million on the presidential campaign, white comparable 
post-convention expenditures by the hard-pressed Democrats came to less 
than half of that - about $10,600,000. Third-party candidate George C. 
Wallace reported spending $6,985,455. 

But it was the Republican revival among large contributors, 
especially businessmen, that really paid the G.OY.'s way in 1968. Large 
contributors, traditionally Republican, who had deserted Goldwater to 
support Lyndon Johnson, returned to the fold more openhanded than ever 
before . 

Nowhere is the return to the Republicans more apparent than in 
the pattern of contributions by members of the Business Council [a 
virtual subsidiary of the CFR1, an elite group of men 

who own, finance, or manage the country's major enterprises .... 
Business Council contributions, predominantly Democratic in 1964, were 
once again overwhelmingly Republican in 1968, by better than three to 
one. One Business Council member who went full circle was C. Douglas 
Dillon, Under Secretary of State in the Eisenhower Administration and 
Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. In 
1960, Dillon gave $26,550 to Republicans and nothing to Democrats. Four 
years later he put up $42,000 for Johnson, nothing for Goldwater. But 
in 1968, Dillon contributed only to Republicans ($9,000) .... 


George Wallace, who notably failed to win support among 
industrialists, received nothing. 

Guess who was not the Establishment's candidate! 

Another indication as to where the Establishment stood on Nixon 
was the stand taken by its key literary spokesman. In a last gasp 
before hanging up his typewriter, Walter Lippmann, a CFR founder who 
was for years known as "the official voice of the Establishment," 
pontificated from Mt . Olympus: 

. . . It has become painfully clear that the Democratic party is too 
disorganized to run the country .... 

This leaves us with Nixon as the one and only candidate who can 
be elected and shows the promise, like it or not, of being able to put 
together an administration to run the government .... 

I do not shrink from the prospect of Nixon as president. He is a 
very much better man today than he was 10 years ago, and I have lived 
too long myself to think that men are what they are forever and ever . 

All in all we cannot deny that the near future will be difficult, 
and I have come to think that on the central issue of an organized 
government, to deal with it Nixon is the only one who may be able to 
produce a government that can govern. 22 

Lippmann 's apparent successor, James Reston (CFR), refrained from 
making a direct recommendation, but made it guite clear that the 
ideological differences popularly believed to exist between the two 
candidates were ephemeral. Reston 

admitted that in voting for Nixon the voters were casting their ballots 
for something they would not receive. According to Reston: 

He [the voter] has no clear ideological choice this year, as the 
voters had in 1964 .... 

The voters want a change. They are clearly leading the nation 
toward what they suppose to be - probably guite inaccurately a guite 
conservative Nixon administration .... 

Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey do not differ about goals. They 
both accept the two related principles [internationalism and the 
welfare state] that have guided American [i.e., CFR] policy over the 
last generation .... 23 

A third professional Liberal who surprisingly (to most 
Republicans) endorsed Richard Nixon was Stewart Alsop of the Fabian- 
Socialist Americans for Democratic Action. Alsop 's recommendation in 

Newsweek was totally through the back door, as he turned on one of the 
founders of his own ADA organization: 

There is a compelling, if rather negative, case to be made for 
the proposition that the national interest urgently demands the 
election of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States. The 
case rests largely on the mounting evidence that the election of Hubert 
H. Humphrey would be a national disaster .... 

A stalemate between the White House and Capitol Hill existed when 
John F. Kennedy was murdered. But poor Hubert Humphrey has been 
deserted by virtually all the liberal Democrats and the imaginative 
intellectuals who helped to make Kennedy's brief rule exciting and 
productive despite the stalemate. 24 

Presumably, Nixon would do much of what the "imaginative intellectuals" 
might recommend, though most of them would always dislike Nixon 
personally. The major reason given by Alsop for supporting Nixon was 
that he could pull off a staged surrender in Vietnam. Alsop continued: 

. . . . Nixon could negotiate without major political damage a 
Vietnam settlement that might get Humphrey impeached. Nixon is an able 
man with other gualif ications for the Presidency, but this is the heart 
of the case for Nixon .... 

Lippmann, Reston, and Alsop, all certified Establishment 
spokesmen and all extreme Liberals, support Republicans about every 
third blue moon, but in 1968 they obviously realized that there was an 
excellent opportunity to advance Leftward with Richard Nixon simply 
because he would disguise his programs in a Conservative costume. 

On November 5, Richard Nixon made good his remarkable comeback, 
although the finish was much closer than most people had predicted, and 
Nixon appeared to be losing strength as the campaign progressed. 
Richard Nixon had achieved the goal he had sought so covetously for 
many years. The guestion was: What price did he have to pay to get to 
the pinnacle of the political heap? Here was a man who was down and out 
both politically and financially in 1962. He was taken to New York, 
given a cushy partnership in a law firm, bought a cooperative apartment 
he could not afford, joined the finest clubs, lived the life of a 
millionaire, acguired nearly a million dollars in assets, traveled the 
world several times, spent his time politicking, and was made President 
of the United States. Somebody up there liked Richard Nixon. That 
somebody was the Establishment Insiders. Nixon was willing to pay their 
price, as Taft was not, and so, as Taft had not been able to do, Nixon 
became President of the United States. 

Sincere Advice From The Unsilent Minority 

Following Nixon's hairbreadth election the pundits of the Liberal 
media disgorged tons of advice to the President-elect. The tone was set 
by the CFR's Joseph Kraft in an article titled "Nixon's First Job: To 
Gain Unity Through Coalition." Exercising his typically involuted 
Kraftmanship, the ultraLiberal columnist opined that the President- 
elect must abandon "... partisanship for a genuine move toward 
coalition with major elements of what is still the major party in the 
country - the Democrats. "1 

Former adviser to President Eisenhower Arthur Larson urged the 
President to move the Republican party Leftward: 

There are two kinds of bringing-together or coalition possible. 
One, which is the source of genuine concern to Nixon's opponents, would 
be to fall back upon the familiar conservative coalition of Republicans 
with the most conservative Southern Democrats. The other would be to 
attract to a central core of moderate Republicans a whole range of 
dissatisfied moderate and liberal Democrats and independents, young 
people, Negroes, opponents of the Vietnam war and of the draft, and 
urban residents suffering from the myriad ailments of the cities. 

The surest way [for Nixon] to "blow it" would be to adopt the 
first course . 

. . . It has been observed before that the role of the Republican 
party, like that of the Conservative Party in England, has sometimes 
seemed to be to come along after a burst of innovative legislation, and 
contribute a talent for consolidation and efficient administration . . 

Since the key to success in the Nixon Administration will be 


administration, not legislation, the place to launch the coalition is 
in the staffing of the Executive Branch and of the operating programs 
at all levels. That is why the importance of an unusually generous 
allocation of responsible jobs to Democrats, independents, and 
dissenters was never higher than now .... what would be a more 
auspicious beginning than to call in Daniel P. Moynihan, who in his 
approach to these problems combines genuine compassion with unblinking 
realism and professional expertise?2 

For far-Left "Republican" Arthur , arson, not even Lettish 
Democrats were far enough to port. Larson wrote: 

Although it is reassuring to see Nixon and Humphrey pledging 
unity, the "coalition" must reach even further than this - to those 
disaffected liberals, blacks, students, intellectuals, and urbanites 
who supported neither Nixon nor Humphrey .... 

For seven years I observed at close range Nixon the elected Vice 
President. On the strength of that observation I can testify that Nixon 
is guite capable of developing a brand of Republicanism broad enough to 
bring into a working relation the disparate elements I have mentioned. 

It is curious that the Liberals who had called John F. Kennedy's 
microscopic victory over Nixon in 1960 a "mandate" were now calling 
Nixon a minority president and screaming for a coalition with the Left. 
Nothing could have been more illogical. Actually, if Nixon's vote was 

added to that received by former Alabama Governor George Wallace, the 
repudiation of the Democrats' welfare-state-at-home, no-win-war-abroad 
policies was overwhelming. But no one was advocating that Nixon form a 
coalition government with the disaffected ten million who cast their 
votes for George Corley Wallace. They were apparently third-class 
citizens who did not deserve a voice, even though much of Nixon's 
campaign rhetoric was lifted lock, stock and cracker barrel from 
Wallace, whose campaign speeches attracted huge crowds around the 
country . 

The Los Angeles Times' Washington correspondent, Robert J. 
Donovan, was not as strident as other Liberals who demanded a coalition 
with the Left. Donovan wrote: "The sum and substance of a Nixon 
Administration will be the defense of the political center in America 
against assault from the right and left. "4 

Nixon had himself stressed many times that he was not a 
Conservative but a centrist. "America needs to hear the voices of the 
broad and vital center. The center is under savage attack. It must be 
held at all cost," the President-elect stated. 5 During his campaign 
Nixon had played down the ideological differences that will determine 
whether the country shall continue to head left or shall swerve back 
toward the traditional stand of a free enterprise Republic. "The old 
quarrels between management and labor, between Democrat and Republican, 
between liberal and conservative must be put on the back burner until 
we decide together if society itself is going to survive, " the 
President-elect said. 6 

Donovan crowed that while Conservatives would be given some 
baubles, they would be hollow ones. "As a reward for past services - 
and maybe his only reward - Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) will be 
invited to state dinners - and will love every minute of them." Donovan 
predicted that, ignoring the Conservatives who put him in office, the 
President would make a pitch to Liberal intellectuals: "... the new 
President, having seen his predecessor mangled by the intellectuals, 
will set out to show that, in his fashion, he is as hospitable to them 
as President John F. Kennedy was. "7 

Donovan also predicted that the campaign promises to eliminate 
waste and government spending would never sprout wings. Wrote Donovan: 

. . . He will espouse the "new economics" - the doctrine that 

the government shall use its taxing and spending powers to 
maintain a healthy economy .... 
A continued rise in government spending [is assured], partly as 
a result of military requirements and of built-in increases in existing 
programs. Including everything, Nixon estimates an annual increase of 
$10.8 billion [in spending] .... 

. . . . It is not for nothing that Nixon calls himself a 
pragmatist . 8 

Many Conservatives were confident, however, that the Nixon 
administration would at least partially repudiate the policies of those 
he had so caustically derided on occasion during his campaign. An 
optimistic Russell Kirk wrote: 

Obligated to no powerful interests [sic] for his election, he 
[Nixon] is free to act defensively for our common good, and the good of 
the world .... 

Mr. Nixon owes nothing to the Republican liberals, who bitterly 
opposed his nomination and contributed little to his election. He is 
free from the slogans of yesteryear. 

Mr. Nixon owes nothing to the men of big business, who supported 
and cajoled President Johnson so long as that policy served their turn. 
He is free to act on behalf of the forgotten American. 

If ever a President was free to lead the people, unfettered by 
promises to special interests, Richard Nixon is that man . 9 

Vacationing in San Juan, Puerto Rico, columnist James Jackson 
Kilpatrick was confident that Nixon would ignore the pleas from the 
Left. Kilpatrick observed: 

The word that washes ashore on this sun-drenched island is that 
Richard Nixon is getting tons of bad advice these days: He is being 
urged to turn to the left in his policies and appointments, with a view 
towards recapturing the lost legions of the great northeast. 

The word comes in part from Robert Novak, the pundit, who has 
been roughing it here for the past few days. He is suggesting that 
Nixon "may go far leftward by Eisenhower standards." He expects the new 
cabinet "to be speckled with left-of-center Republicans." 

Why in the world should Nixon turn to the left? What's the left 
done for him lately? And how is it conceived that he owes some "debt" 
to Nelson Rockefeller? 

Nixon will blunder - and blunder badly if he veers to port in 
forming his administration and framing his program .... 

But the greatest argument against any turn to the left by Nixon 
lies in the nature of the man. Nixon could not opt for newer and 
gaudier programs of public welfare, or for giddy flights of federal 
innovation, without abandoning the whole tenor of his fall campaign. He 
would then be fairly chargeable with hypocrisy, double-dealing, bad 
faith, and all the rest. He would be untrue to himself; and that he 
will not do. Of course, Nixon will go generally to the right. His own 
deepest instincts will not let him go anywhere else. 10 

Although the observations of Kirk and Kilpatrick are perfectly 
logical if one ignores Nixon's long-time connections with the CFR, the 
fact remains that he lived in Nelson Rockefeller's apartment house as 
Rockefeller's neighbor in New York City and used Nelson Rockefeller's 
personal attorney, John Mitchell, as his campaign manager. The 
President soon made it clear that he was listening to the Krafts and 
Larsons and not to the Kirks and Kilpatricks. He announced that he 
would solicit "fresh ideas, new ideas, dissenting ideas, from many 
segments of the U.S. public. The intellectual community will not be 
reached by creating "a little office" in the White House to recruit 
brains, Nixon said, "because if we are not worthy of support from the 
intellectual community [i.e., the academic Left] we are not going to 
get it .... I consider myself an intellectual ... we want to have 
a continuing relationship with the best brains in this country, with 
the colleges, universities, foundations, business organizations," Nixon 
said. 11 

Many wishful-thinking Conservative Republicans rationalized away 
Nixon's actions during his eight years as Veep in the Eisenhower 
administration, and his often Liberal state- 

merits during his own two Presidential campaigns, by saying, in essence, 
"Just wait until he gets into office. Then he can be his own man. The 
real Nixon is a staunch Conservative." 


1. Los Angeles limes, November 8, 1968. 

2. Ibid., November 17, 1968. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Ibid., November 7, 1968. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Santa Ana Register, November 10, 1968. 10. Washington Star News 
Service, November 25, 1968. 

11. Los Angeles Times, January 13, 1969. 

The Pachyderms Return 

During the election campaign many influential Conservatives were 
approached by Nixon emissaries and told in knowing confidential tones 
that, after "Dick" was elected, "for every Liberal brought in the front 
door, seven Conservatives would be brought in the back door." Most 
Conservatives hopefully accepted this promise, many, because of past 
experience, against their better judgment. In reality the reverse has 
proven to be true. While a few Conservative advisers are dangled (like 
so many charms on a bracelet) before the increasingly incredulous 
Americanists, the status quo has prevailed over the Liberal 
bureaucracy, while Nixon's "good grey men" dutifully attempt to apply 
the same type of business efficiency to socialism that their 
counterparts in Germany applied to Hitler's concentration camps. And, 
we might add, the same morality applies in both cases. 

Shortly after his election Richard Nixon assembled a brain trust 
to staff the new Republican administration. The ideological make-up of 
the brain trusters was to be reflected in the appointments they made. 

One of the key men working behind the scenes for Nixon on the 
selection of talent to staff the new administration was Joseph E. 
Johnson, a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign 
Relations and president of the grossly misnamed Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace. Johnson is a former chief assistant to, and close 
friend of, Soviet spy Alger Hiss. When he was indicted, Hiss was 


president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; he was 

succeeded by Joseph E. Johnson. 

According to internationally respected journalist Edward Hunter, 
Johnson was "actively engaged in preparing alternative Republican 
personalities to replace top Democratic party officials," in a Nixon 
reorganization "to bring in precisely those Republicans as successors 
who are most similar to those being displaced." Since Richard Nixon was 
partially responsible for the unmasking of Hiss, it is incredibly 
ironic that he should pick Hiss's successor to help staff a Republican 
administration . 

Johnson was chairman of a conference held in the State Department 
on November 14-15, 1968, by the American Foreign Service Association. 
Hunter stated: "The theme underlying the two days of speeches and 
private discussions was the retention of power through personal 
selection." Those attending the conference included such familiar 
Establishmentarians as Adam Yarmolinsky, Herman Kahn, Doak Barnett, 
Arthur Larson, R. Richard Rubottom Jr., and Charles E. ("Chip") Bohlen. 
Nicholas Katzenbach, who at that time had announced his resignation but 
was later retained, attended as representative of Secretary of State 
Rusk. A laugh greeted Katzenbach 's salutation to "fellow officers and 
fellow Republicans." Former Young Communist Leaguer Adam Yarmolinsky, 
who, according to U.S. News & World Report, had been responsible for 
securing the appointment of Robert Strange McNamara to the position of 
Secretary of Defense, discussed the retention of a class of appointees 
developed by the Kennedys called the "In-and-Outers . " Yarmolinsky 
pointed out that a procedure must be assured by which these persons 
could continue to move between official government posts and related 
jobs outside, as in graduate schools and "think factories." 

On December 7, 1968, the AP noted that another of Mr. Nixon's 
chief talent scouts was Dr. Glenn Olds, who (said 

Human Events on November 23, 1969) conferred over appointments for the 
Administration with Adam Yarmolinsky . Yarmolinsky, the son of two well- 
known comrades and a key figure in the Kennedy administration, is now a 
professor at Harvard, where he once led the Young Communist League. No 
doubt Yarmolinsky had some fascinating suggestions for Olds. Human 
Events lamented: 

Dr. Glenn Olds, a chief talent scout for the Nixon 
Administration, continues his liberal ways. Having previously suggested 
that Nixon tap LBJ rejects Robert McNamara and Arthur Goldberg for the 
Cabinet, Olds has also recommended that the Presidentelect bring George 
Ball back into the government. 

Dr. Olds says he "was involved in helping to get the Peace Corps 
going"; he also worked with Sargent Shriver in setting up VISTA. Just 
how he became a Nixon talent scout is a mystery. Old's own explanation 
was rather hazy: "Mr. Nixon said, 'Glenn, I don't want you to be 
concerned with political partisanship.' " 

The man in charge of top Nixon appointments was an international 
banker named Peter Flanigan. Stuart Loory noted of him, in the Los 
Angeles Times of March 3, 1969: 

The keeper of the document known in the Nixon Administration as 
"the Plumb Book, " one of the most powerful men in the capital during 
these early days of the new presidency, has no official title, draws no 
salary and is preparing to leave town as guietly as he came. 

He is Peter M. Flanigan, the man who has directed the talent 
search for all the top-level positions - cabinet officers, their 
deputies and the occupants of slots on all the important boards and 
commissions in Washington. 

Instead of leaving town, Flanigan joined the White House staff. 
He is a senior partner in the international banking firm of Dillon, 
Reed & Co., where he works for JFK's Secretary of 

the Treasury, C. Douglas Dillon, a member of the board of directors of 
the Council on Foreign Relations. In the 1960 campaign Flanigan was 
chairman of the Citizens for Nixon organization. Wrote Loory: 

While he worked for Nixon last year, a more senior partner in his 
firm, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon, worked hard 
promoting the candidacy of New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller for 
the Republican nomination. 

Columnist Loory 's description of Flanigan suggested that he was 
playing Colonel House to Nixon's Woodrow Wilson: 

He was never appointed to a government position. Yet his office 
can be reached guickly by calling the White House switchboard. One 
White House official calls Flanigan' s relationship to the White House 
"the Czar" and says objections to it were raised shortly after the 
inauguration. The objections were considered and rejected, however . . 

And along with submitting a sampling of evaluations by others to 
the President, Flanigan also expresses his own opinion on each 
applicant. And as an aide said, "His power of suggestion is 
considerable . " 

Flanigan did not exactly lean over backwards to bring 
Conservatives into the administration. A year and a half later Ralph de 
Toledano noted: 

In fact, a quick look around official Washington shows that, with 
a few exceptions, the people who laid it on the line for Mr. Nixon over 
the last two decades are conspicuously absent. It could, of course, be 
that these old battlers for Nixon lack the qualifications for White 
House positions - or that Peter Magnus Flanigan, the patronage-and- 
knif e-wielder in residence, has discovered that they all have political 
bad breath. 

However, the absence of the old Nixon stalwarts goes beyond these 
personal considerations. For they represent, ideologically speaking, 
the millions of Americans who put Mr. Nixon in office and who are 
expected in November to give him a Republican 

Senate and House. These Americans made Mr. Nixon, but they have, in 
effect, lost their franchise. 1 

Yet another of the President's top procurers of talent for the 
administration was Leonard Garment, a former Nixon law partner, who, 
according to the Wall Street Journal of August 12, 1968, "... 
considered himself a very liberal Democrat - until his conversion to 
the Nixon candidacy." Garment's job was to recruit non-Republican 
Leftists into the administration. Evans and Novak wrote in the 
Washington Post on November 8, 1968: 

Nixon aide Leonard Garment, a political liberal in Nixon's law 
firm, has been exploring the ranks of liberal Democrats and some New- 
Left thinkers to cull ideas and size up personalities .... 

The Los Angeles Times of May 24, 1969, in an article titled 
"Outsider with Inside Ties," said of Leonard Garment: 

There are times in the White House when the discussion among 
President Nixon's staff reaches a point where someone will say: 

"What does Len think about this?" 

So someone will pick up a phone, dial 298-5970, and get Leonard 
Garment . . . and, if necessary, Garment can get from his desk chair 
across the street and through the south-west gate of the White House 
(where he is not likely to be spotted entering) within a few minutes to 
render his advice in person. 

Garment's name appears on no White House roster. He is not on 
federal salary. Yet he is one of the key men in the Nixon 
Administration . 

He needs no clearance to get through the gate. He wears no Secret 
Service badge as other visitors must .... 

Garment studiously avoids interviews, preferring to stay as far 
behind the scenes as possible .... 

After the election, he stayed on in a small office at campaign 
headquarters helping put the new administration together .... 

That half-block walk must have been getting to be too 

much. According to columnist Victor Riesel in the Indianapolis Star of 
July 21, 1969, Garment, after returning from the Moscow Film Festival, 
moved into the White House and, said U.S. News & World Report, was 
regarded as Nixon's "No. 1 idea man." "Officially," wrote Riesel, 
"Garment is special counsel to the President on the arts, volunteerism 

and minorities - reminiscent of a [Franklin] Rooseveltian aide, Dave 
Niles." (David K. Niles was a White House contact man for Soviet 
agents.) Leonard Garment has been called Nixon's Harry Hopkins - since 
Hopkins was for all practical purposes a Soviet agent. Garment is 
currently in charge of the Washington branch of Nixon's law firm, but 
none of the Liberals who opposed Judge Haynsworth's confirmation to the 
Supreme Court bench have said anything about Garment ' s flagrant 
conflict of interest. 

James Reston (CFR) inadvertently revealed that Robert Anderson 
(CFR) , Ike's Secretary of the Treasury, a member of the Business 
Advisory Council - which comprises the hierarchy of the CFR - and a 
partner of the Insider international banking firm of Carl M. Loeb, 
Rhoades and Co., was sneaking in and out of Nixon's apartment, 
obviously wanting not to be seen. Reston wrote: 

It is a fascinating parade - from old-fashioned Chippendale 
Republicans like Everett McKinley Dirksen to functional modern 
Democratic types like Patrick Moynihan of M.I.T. Most of them [those 
attending sessions at which appointments are discussed] come out of 
Nixon's guarters saying that it was all very interesting, and some of 
them, like Robert Anderson, slip down the freight elevator out of sight 
.... 2 

Two other advisers from the campaign believed to have played a 
part in staffing the Nixon administration are J. Irwin Miller (CFR), 
head of Cummins Engine Co., and Kingman Brewster (CFR), president of 
Yale University. 3 Miller was the first layman to ascend to the 
presidency of the politically- 
powerful National Council of Churches and was called by Esquire 
magazine the man most qualified to be President of the United States. 
He was a backer of the "poor people's army" that invaded Washington 
during 1968. Miller, who has always been a Rockefeller man, served as 
chairman of a special presidential panel that recommended 
liberalization of U.S. trade with the Communists. Both Miller and 
Brewster have ties with the Ford Foundation: Miller is a member of its 
board of trustees, and Brewster - who made headlines in the spring of 
1970, when he said that Black Panther Bobby Seale could not get a fair 
trial in this country on a charge of murdering a police informant - has 
served on a special committee for the Ford Foundation. 4 

The screening of thousands of prospects for rank-and-file jobs 
with the Nixon administration was handled by Harry Flemming, age 28. He 
is the son of the radical Arthur Flemming, Leftist president of the 
National Council of Churches and head of the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare under President Eisenhower. Human Events of 
December 14, 1968, reported that Flemming' s friends said he was "ari 
outand-out liberal who actually preferred Rockefeller to Nixon." 

Young Flemming, who might be thought hardly experienced enough at 
28 to be an authority on national talent, sent letters to all 70,000 
persons listed in Who's Who in America, soliciting suggestions for 
presidential appointments. (The editors of this volume have exhibited a 
marked bias in listings to favor the Left.) He said that neither party 
nor ideology would be a barrier to selection, and many Republicans 
complained about the large number of jobs Flemming was handing out to 
"Liberal" Democrats. So bad was the situation that Senator Robert Dole 
of Kansas, half in jest and wholly in earnest, urged Republican 
lawmakers to include this line in any letters of recommendation for a 

Nixon appointment: "Even though Zilch is a Republican, he's highly 
gualified for the job." 

Battle Line, the publication of the American Conservative Union, 
in its February-March 1969 issue, had this to say: 

Slowly but surely it has finally dawned on Republican party 
regulars across the nation that they have been taken. First there was 
the hocked-up post-election business about a "great talent hunt" by the 
aides of the President-elect Nixon among thousands 

of Americans who might be gualified to serve in Washington. The GOP 
pols, ready, willing and Republican, did not understand why their 
applications for jobs carried no more weight than a listing in Who's 
Who. After all, how many of the thousands of citizens listed in the 
2287 pages between Messrs. Aagaard and Zugger had actually worked for 
the election of Richard Nixon . . . ? 

The column of Liberals Evans and Novak in the Los Angeles Times 
of February 13, 1969, reported: 

Thus the Nixon Administration ... is running badly afoul of its 
own party over jobs and patronage. Some such trouble is inevitable in 
any new administration, but what sets the Nixon Administration apart is 
the unprecedented decision not to clean house. 

To the contrary, Republican politicians are convinced that Mr. 
Nixon is so concerned about getting along with the Democrats, who still 
control Congress, that the promised bureaucratic housecleaning is 
indefinitely postponed. 

That may help Mr. Nixon with the Democrats. But it's a far cry 
from the party-building operation Republicans were absolutely certain 
Mr. Nixon would put into sweeping effect if he ever entered the White 
House . 

Like many other Republicans, Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, who had done 
much to achieve Nixon's election by organizing Republican womens' 
groups, was extremely upset by the Nixon policy. In an article for the 
May 10, 1969 Human Events titled "Patronage Is the Name of the Game," 
Mrs. Schlafly proclaimed: 

Ever since Richard Nixon won the Presidency in November 1968, the 
press has been filled with variations on the principal 

theme: President Nixon can only fill 1,500 to 3,000 federal jobs - the 
rest of the federal employees are locked in by Civil Service. 

This claim is preposterous and Republicans at every level should 
call the bluff of the Democrats and the liberals who are trying to put 
it over. 

The Democrats have never permitted Civil Service to impede their 
political objectives. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson 
ruthlessly got rid of Republican holdovers - Civil Service to the 
contrary notwithstanding - and used every possible tactic to put 
Democrats on the payroll and keep them there. No holds were barred in 
their purge of Republicans and payroll padding with Democrats. 

The elimination of this payroll padding would be a fulfillment of 
Republican campaign promises and a service to the overburdened American 
taxpayers .... 

This failure to use federal patronage [during the Eisenhower 
Administration] is also probably a principal reason why, in every 
subseguent year of the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican party 

steadily lost ground and more of its candidates were defeated .... 
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs which must be turned over to 
Republicans if we are to accomplish policy changes .... 

There should be thousands of Republicans flooding into federal 
offices from every state in the union - especially from the states 
which contributed substantially to Nixon's victory. This is the only 
way we can secure the change for which the American people voted. 

Candidate Nixon admitted publicly, when he spoke to Republican 
delegates in caucus at Miami Beach during the convention in 1968, that 
one of the greatest failures of the Eisenhower administration was the 
complete lack of White House action in building up the Republican Party 
organization. S It appears that GOP history not only repeats itself, it 
stutters badly. 

As the months dragged on it became more and more obvious to 
dismayed Republicans that there would be no housecleaning of the 
federal bureaucracy, which by its very nature is overwhelmingly 
Liberal. In an article in the Long 

Beach (Calif.) Press Telegram titled "Where's the New Broom?" Nixon 
partisan James Jackson Kilpatrick lamented: 

Out with it: Mr. Nixon, thus far, disappoints .... Where is 
the new broom of our autumn exertions? 

Mr. Nixon has not cleaned house. To be sure, a new cabinet is in 
office, but what of that? Bureaucracy is a kind of root vegetable: What 
counts is underground. It is at the third and fourth levels that 
memorandums are drafted, regulations enforced, speeches prepared, and 
policies shaped. If Mr. Nixon fails to dig down to these levels, and to 
put in new men with new ideas, he will harvest the same old thing . . . 

Human Events added on May 10, 1969: "... while Republicans 
occupy the highest-paying jobs, Democrats remain entrenched in the 
second-level jobs where policy is often set." Nixon's friendly 
biographer Ralph de Toledano commented: 

. . . Mr. Nixon [has] forgotten the prime rule of politics, so 
well applied by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman: Reward your 
friends and punish your enemies. The opposite has been true in this 
administration ... .6 

Given the debts to the Insiders of the Eastern Liberal 
Establishment run up by Mr. Nixon in order to become President, and the 
men who picked the appointees to the new administration, it is no 
wonder that Conservatives fared so poorly. Again we cite Mr. de 
Toledano : 

The "conservatives" won the election for Richard Nixon - and they 
are losing the election to him. It can no longer be denied that those 
to the right of center who carried the election for Nixon have gotten 
less than the back of his hand for their efforts. 

Obviously, the spoils are going to those who did their worst, or 
best, to see Nixon's opponents triumph .... 7 

This being the case, it is interesting and instructive to 

reflect on the men who did receive appointments from the new president. 

While stumping the hustings during the campaign, Mr. Nixon had 
given this description of the men he would appoint to high positions if 
elected: "I don't want a government of yes men in which high officials 
are asked to dance like puppets on a presidential string. "$ 

Following the election, rumors as to who would be picked for the 
cabinet positions were of course rife. Evans and Novak hopefully 
forecast that "he [Nixon] may go far leftward by Eisenhower standards." 
9 The Christian Science Monitor reported that Nixon was "giving serious 
thought" to the selection of Nelson Rockefeller as Secretary of Defense 
a possibility that received the approval of none other than William F. 
Buckley Jr. It was also pointed out that Rockefeller would fit in as 
Secretary of State. The names of other prominent Republican Liberals 
were bandied about like so many ping-pong balls. However, the jobs did 
not go to Rockefeller or any of the other big-name Eastern 
Establishment Republicans, but instead went primarily to old Nixon 
confidants and second-echelon Establishment men. Rockefeller was 
apparently content to operate through lieutenants rather than stir up a 
hornets' nest by taking a job himself. U.S. News & World Report 
observed in its March 17, 1969 issue: "Some "conservative' Republicans 
are complaining that too many appointments by the Nixon Administration 
have been influenced by Governor Nelson Rockefeller . . . . " 

The New York Times' Tom Wicker, a literary spokesman for the 
elite snobs, wrote that "one of the notable events of the transition 
period was the collective sigh of relief that went up from the liberal 
Eastern Establishment" when Nixon made his appointments. ,0 The Liberal 
press was mildly enthusiastic. "The guality of pragmatism, may indeed, 
best sum up the basic characteristic of Nixon's incoming cabinet." 

The New York Times itself sniffed, on December 12, 1968: "As a 
group Mr. Nixon's men bear a much closer resemblance to the Kennedy- 
Johnson team they replace than to the Eisenhower Republican team from 
which they are theoretically descended." 

On the same date the hysterically Leftist Washington Post gave 
its approval : 

The Nixon Cabinet, and that small part of the supporting cast 
which was unveiled earlier, has a look of careful practical 
mindedness, a sense of purposefulness, and an air of competence, 
taken in the main .... 

. . . it is enough to say that Mr. Nixon has begun well, by 
collecting around him the sort of competent men that are the 
prereguisite to a competent Government." 

Even LBJ said he had a "good opinion" of cabinet appointees he 
knew. 12 Democratic National Chairman Lawrence F. O'Brien described them 
as "a group of distinguished men with fine backgrounds." All the 
Liberals seemed relieved. 

The American Conservative Union's Battle Line wasn't quite so 
thrilled. It rhetorically asked in February 1969: "Who ever heard of 
most of these men, much less ever having seen them at a Republican 
Lincoln Day dinner anywhere . . .?" 

Most observers concluded that the Cabinet was made up of "good 
gray men" who were unlikely to steal any of Nixon's thunder but were 
hardly what Nixon had promised - "a Cabinet made up of the ablest men 
in America, leaders in their own right and not merely by virtue of 
appointment."' 3 

In fact, the appointees very much resembled the "yes men" whom 
Nixon had said during the campaign that he did not want. And on closer 
inspection, some of the "good gray men" don't appear guite so gray. 

Some of these appointees are personal friends and associates or 
political cronies of the President - men like, for 

instance, Robert Finch of California, an old intimate, who was first 
Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and is now 
Presidential Advisor; John N. Mitchell, AttorneyGeneral, who was 
Nixon's campaign manager in spite of the fact that he has close ties 
with Nelson Rockefeller; and William P. Rogers, Secretary of State, an 
old and close friend of the President since his Vice-Presidential 
campaign, who as Eisenhower's Attorney-General had spearheaded the move 
to destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy and had also played a major role in 
the drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Other appointees are 
ideological Liberals, Democrats or theoretical ex-Democrats, CFR 
members, and other types of strange bedfellows for an allegedly 
Conservative Republican President - for example, Henry A. Kissinger 
(CFR) , Special Assistant for National Security Affairs and the most 
important man in the Nixon Administration, bar none; Arthur Burns, now 
chairman of the extremely powerful Federal Reserve Board, who was a New 
Deal Democrat before he turned "modern Republican" and was appointed to 
President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors; Jacob Beam (CFR), 
now American Ambassador to Russia, who as Eisenhower's Ambassador to 
Poland had been involved in the Warsaw sex and spy scandals and had 
resigned his post under mysterious circumstances, only to be appointed 
director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and later, 
under LBJ, Ambassador to Czecho-Slovakia; and Presidential Counselor 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, self-professed "Liberal radical" who salvaged 
- expensively - the Great Society under the Nixon administration. 

President Of The Universe 

The ultimate goal of the Insider conspirators is an all-powerful 
World Superstate, which they will control. The cartelists and 
monopolists will then be able to parcel out franchises on the world's 
natural resources, transportation, finance, and commerce to their own 
clique of oligarchs. The Insiders won't have to worry about pesky 
upstart competitors, because there won't be any competitors. You won't 
be able to be in business without a license from the monolithic World 
Superstate. This explains the seeming contradiction of so many of the 
super-rich advocating a world socialist government. There will be only 
two classes - the Insiders with their managerial elite and their 
enforcers at the top, and the other 99 per cent of the population, made 
up of slave-drones, at the bottom. These are the same conditions that 
prevail today in the Communist countries, where, contrary to Communist 
philosophy, some are much more equal than others. Even Red China 
provides Rolls Royces for its high mucky-mucks, or did, while the 
workers in that proletarian paradise are fortunate if they own 
bicycles. Marxists have always worked to eliminate the middle class, 
and Marxism is the tool of the superwealthy Insiders. 

Speaking for the Insiders, James Warburg, whose father was 
primarily responsible for the creation of the Federal Reserve System 
and whose relatives financed the Communist Revolution in Russia, told a 
Senate Committee on February 


17, 1950: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - 

conquest or consent." 

Selling the American people the idea of world government has not 
been an easy task. The aftermath of World War I, during which all of 
the secret treaties and double-dealings surfaced at Versailles, 
convinced isolation-inclined America that foreign entanglements were to 
be avoided. Only the growth of international Communism, always 
carefully nurtured by what would appear to be its arch-enemy, the 
super-rich international bankers, has altered America's attitude toward 
foreign entanglements. But while Americans have accepted defense 
alliances, they are still wary of world government, because they 
realize that, with 5 per cent of the world's people and 50 per cent of 
the world's wealth, we would literally be looted to pay the taxes for 
the world superstate. 

The Liberal media have created an image of those who oppose 
"internationalism" or the "America last" foreign policy as rabid 
chauvinists who despise everything and everyone that is not American. 
Those who believe we should mind our own business and let other 
countries mind theirs have been given the name "isolationists," a term 
that has been made synonymous with bigotry and backwardness. In truth, 
for almost one hundred and fifty years Americans had traded with the 
rest of the world, importing and exporting goods and carrying on normal 
diplomatic relations with all legitimate governments. But America had 
stayed strictly neutral in all foreign wars and had neither tried to 
set the policies of foreign governments nor let them establish ours. 
Prejudice, hatred, and provincialism had nothing to do with it. In his 
Farewell Address, George Washington had warned: "Against the insidious 
wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be 
constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign 

influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government." 
Since aban- 
doning this philosophy America has been involved in a perpetual war for 
perpetual peace in which we fight one foreign war after another, each 
one propagandized as the war that will lead to permanent peace. 

Ever ready to play both sides of the street, the Ultra-Left has 
now largely become "neo-isolationist, " by which is meant favoring the 
termination of even the semblance of resistance to the advance of 
Communism. This perverted isolationism applies only to the military, as 
the "neo-isolationists " would actually step up foreign aid to socialist 
and Communist countries. 

Leftists have always advocated centralization of power in 
government. When there is only one central government to infiltrate and 
take over, instead of thousands of local governments, the job is 
infinitely simplified for the would-be totalitarian dictators. Karl 
Marx's Communist Manifesto clearly implied the eventual establishment 
of a single world socialist state - a world government. In 1915, in No. 
40 of the Russian organ, The Socialist Democrat, Nicolai Lenin proposed 
a "United States of the world." The program of the Communist 
International of 1936 says that world dictatorship "can be established 
only by the victory of socialism in different countries or groups of 
countries, after which the Proletariat Republics would unite on federal 
lines with those already in existence, and this system would expand . . 
. at length forming the world union of Soviet Socialist Republics." 

Joseph Stalin divided his plan for achievement of this Communist 
world federalism into three stages: 

(1) Socialize the economies of all nations, particularly the West- 
ern capitalistic democracies; (2) bring about federal union of vari 
ous groupings of these socialized nations; and (3) amalgamate all of 

the federal unions into one world-wide union of socialist states. 

World government has a strong emotional appeal for Americans, 
based on their universal desire for world peace. 

The Insiders have the Communists rattling their sabers with one hand 
and dangling the olive branch with the other. Naturally everyone 
gravitates towards the olive branch, not realizing that the olive 
branch is controlled by another arm of the entity that is rattling the 
sabers . 

There are basically two tightly interlocked groups promoting 
world government. The first, the United World Federalists, proposes 
turning the UN into a world government that would include the 
Communists. The other, the Atlantic Unionists, would form a new nation, 
the United States of Atlantica, built around the NATO countries, as a 
supposed deterrent to Communism. The Insiders manipulating the world 
government movement work both sides of the street, taking advantage of 
those who wish to appease Communism and those who wish to oppose it. 
Richard Nixon has been associated with both factions of the world 
government pincers movement. 

In the October 1949 issue of their magazine, World Government 
News, the United World Federalists stated: "The Movement, while 
supporting the efforts of the United Nations, shall work to transform 
it by fundamental amendment into a world federal government." 

The United World Federalists organization was born in 1947, when 
three hundred assorted Liberals, socialists, and Communists from a 
number of one-world groups met at Asheville, North Carolina, and 
combined into a single group. The UWF is an affiliate of the World 

Movement for World Federal Government, which was established in 
Switzerland in 1946. UWF is the largest world government group in the 
United States (except for the Communists), and the most vigorously 
active in its propaganda. UWF wants a "world government" that will make 
world law and enforce it directly upon individuals, who will thereafter 
be "world citizens" no longer citizens of their respective nations. 
This movement has attracted more persons influential in business life 

any other, and has branches in fifteen countries. In its "Beliefs, 
Purposes and Policies" (revised November 1-2, 1947), the UWF stated: 

. . . World peace can be created and maintained only under a 
world federal government, universal and strong enough to prevent armed 
conflict between nations, and having direct jurisdiction over the 
individual and those matters within its authority. 

To accomplish this, UWF leader Grenville Clark stated: 

The manufacture of all war weapons would be prohibited to the 
member nations. Such manufacture would be confined to those arms 
required by the world police force and would be conducted solely in 
arsenals owned and operated by the United Nations) 

In an effort to bring about the world police force, the UWF is 
very active in lobbying for various disarmament bills, gloating, for 
example, in its official newspaper, The Federalists, in November 1963, 
"Perhaps the Test Ban Treaty didn't introduce the millennium, but it 
put an end to yesterday." 

In September of 1952, at a conference held in London by the World 
Association of Parliamentarians for World Government, representatives 
of the United World Federalists worked with members of that 
organization in the preparation of a plan for a world police force and 
occupation armies to enforce "peace." 

The Plan established that after they had succeeded in revising 
the U.N. Charter (at some future date) and converting the United 
Nations into a world government, these conspirators would deploy 
"peace-keeping" forces around the globe. According to this formally 
prepared scheme, there would be a "World Dictator," the eight "Zone 
Directors," and fifty-one "Regional Directors," none of whom would ever 
be allowed to serve in their respective countries. That, of course, 
would ensure "impartiality." 

The Plan, exposed by Colonel Eugene Pomeroy and the 
internationally famous journalist Douglas Reed, provided that no 
American troops of the "Peace" force would ever be stationed in or even 
near the United States, but our nation and Canada would be occupied by 
armies from Russia, Mongolia, and probably East Germany. Red troops 
from other countries as well would be scattered over the rest of the 
six regions into which it was decided to divide North America, in order 
to enforce the authority of the new world government and prevent 
Americans from engaging in the "crime" of "sheltering behind national 
allegiance . " 

Because of their tremendous populations, the Chinese Communists 
and their Soviet Comrades would dominate the World Parliament of such a 
government. If this chilling plan is allowed to reach fruition - as the 
conspirators intend that it shall - America is dead. 

Since UWF advocates "union now" with the Communists, it is not 
surprising that it also strongly backs aid and trade with the enemy. 

UWF sponsored resolutions in the various state legislatures 
calling for world government. By 1953 the resolution had passed twenty- 
three states, but in that year California rescinded its approval and 
sixteen other states thereafter followed California. The world 
government forces, however, did not give up. They simply changed their 
tactics. Direct action through legislation having been blocked, they 
now turned their propaganda assault to the "strengthening" of the 
United Nations Charter. 

We could, literally, list for a hundred pages the Communist and 
Leftist front affiliations of those who founded the United World 
Federalists. Even our necessarily limited file of Senate and House 
Committee documents shows seven hundred forty affiliations of the 
forty-two key founders of the United World Federalists with officially 
cited Communist fronts and projects. And, going just a step further, we 

from a similar scanning of the public records of some one hundred 
eighty officials and members - one-sixth of whom are members of the CFR 
- that a total of one hundred sixteen have somehow managed to amass at 
least 1,250 affiliations with Communist fronts and publications. 

While most members of the UWF are Democrats, the organization 
also has strong support from modern Republicans. In a message to the 
United World Federalists in May 1963, former President Eisenhower 
stated: "The United World Federalists, adhering to common standards of 
justice and international conduct, reguires the continued support of 
all those dedicated to freedom." 

Also supporting the UWF is Modern Republican Jacob Javits, who 
sent this message to the one-worlders : 

I want to commend the World Federalists for their continued fine 
efforts on behalf of world peace under a world rule of law, for your 
outstanding contribution on behalf of the United Nations, and your 
spirited tradition of service. 3 

In September of 1968, candidates for public office received a 
letter from the United World Federalists that stated: 

Our organization has been endorsed and commended by all U.S. 
presidents in the last 20 years and by the current nominees for the 
presidency. As examples we guote as follows: 

Richard Nixon: "Your organization can perform an important 
service by continuing to emphasize that world peace can only come thru 
world law. Our goal is world peace. Our instrument for achieving peace 
will be law and justice. If we concentrate our energies toward these 
ends, I am hopeful that real progress can be made." 

Hubert H. Humphrey: "Every one of us is committed to brotherhood 
among all nations, but no one pursues these goals with more dignity and 
dedication than the United World Federalists." 

There really was not a dime's worth of difference. Voters were 
given the choice between CFR world government advocate Nixon and CFR 
world government advocate Humphrey. Only the rhetoric was changed to 
fool the public. 

Richard Nixon is, of course, far too clever to actually join the 
UWF, but he has supported their legislative program since his early 
days in Congress. In the October 1948 issue of the UWF publication 
World Government News, on page 14, there appears the following 
announcement: "Richard Nixon: Introduced world government resolution 
(HCR 68) 1947, and ABC (World Government) resolution 1948." 

Of special interest to the UWF throughout its history has been 
its campaign to repeal the Connally Reservation, whereby the United 
States has reserved to itself the power to decide what matters are 
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S. and may not be 
brought under the jurisdiction of the World Court. The UWF wants repeal 
of the Connally Reservation, which would mean that the United States 
would accept "as binding the rulings of the International Court of 
Justice [World Court] on disarmament, on interpretation of the U.N. 
Charter and laws, and of international treaties." The abolition of the 
Connally Reservation would leave us at the mercy of the Afro-Asian and 
Iron Curtain blocs that dominate the U.N. It would be tantamount to 
surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S. to its enemies, and would thus 
be a gross violation of the Presidential oath to "preserve, protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet Richard Nixon for 
many years has advocated the repeal of the Connally Reservation. 
Incredulous patriots who wrote Nixon about his advocacy of its repeal 
were sent a copy of a letter dated April 14, 1960, from Richard Nixon 
to Eugene Pulliam, publisher of the Phoenix Republic and Gazette, in 
which Nixon flatly stated that he favored repeal. In the letter Nixon 
said: "I believe . . . that the intervening years have shown that 
our so-called ' self- judging reservation' is no longer necessary." 
Actually, the intervening years - during which the U.N. has expanded to 
take in the Afro-Asian mini-states, whose common denominator is a 
hatred of the United States and a desire to get their hands on our 
wealth - have shown that the protection of the Connally Reservation is 
more necessary than ever. 

President Nixon actually goes far beyond mere repeal of the 
amendment embodying the reservation, to advocate "world rule through 
world law" - the official slogan of the UWF - in which the World Court 
is to be made the Supreme Court of the World. (Mr. Nixon does not 
mention whether Earl Warren should be made its Chief Justice.) The New 
York Times of April 14, 1959, commenting on a speech made by Mr. Nixon 
the day before, stated: 

An important and far-reaching proposal for realizing the guiding 
ideal of both the United States and the United Nations was made by Vice 
President Nixon in his speech before the Academy of Political Science. 

The ideal, long proclaimed by American statesmen, in particular 
President Eisenhower, and embodied in the United Nations Charter, is to 
establish a peaceful world in which the rule of force will be replaced 
by the rule of law. 

To that end Mr. Nixon proposes to elevate the International Court 
of Justice at The Hague to a real Supreme Court of the world with far 
wider jurisdiction and employment in international disputes and with 
the power to make binding decisions especially in cases involving 
differing interpretations of international treaties and agreements that 
have been a dominant element in the conflict between the free world and 
the Communist bloc .... 

Mr. Nixon characterized his proposal as still unofficial. But he 
has wide Administration backing for it and, in line with President 
Eisenhower's State of the Union message, forecast Administration 
recommendations to Congress to give effect to it by modifying American 
reservations [the Connally Reservation] as to the court's jurisdiction 
which set a pattern for other nations . 

. . . Mr. Nixon's proposal deserves both study and support. 

Giving the World Court power over America and Americans has been 
a long-time UWF goal. And Mr. Nixon is in the process of revitalizing 
the court. According to the Los Angeles Times of May 3, 1970: 

Among those interested are Secretary of State William P. Rogers 
and his undersecretary, Elliot Richardson, who have both made recent 
speeches urging revival and extension of the court; an assortment of 
high federal judges; a bipartisan group of congressmen led by Rep. Paul 
Findley (R.-Ill.); U.N. Secretary General U Thant - and, somewhere in 
the wings, President Nixon .... 

It is not accident, then, that certain State Department leaders 
are already hard at work trying to scrape up some cases from dusty 
files to take to the court .... 

The other major world government movement is the Atlantic Union 
group, which believes that getting half a loaf is half way to getting a 
whole loaf. Like Stalin, they believe that circumstances necessitate a 
nation's going through a regional government set-up before going on to 
world government. Although the UWF seeks immediate amalgamation with 
the Communist countries, that idea is often hard to sell; so the 
Insiders have Atlantic Union, which is ostensibly anti-Communist. And 
indeed, there are some sincere, if naive, anti-Communists in the 
Atlantic Union movement who support abolishing the United States and 
forming, with the countries of Western Europe, a new nation, the United 
States of Atlantica. Most members of Atlantic Union, however, are 
extreme Liberals from whom seldom is heard an antiCommunist word, 
except when they are urging the necessity of joining in a United States 
of Europe to guard against the advance of Communism. 

The idea of Atlantic Union is not new. In fact, it had its origin 
in the fertile brain of an Englishman named Cecil Rhodes, whose idea 
was to reconguer the United States and make it an integral part of the 
British Empire. To this end he 

established the Rhodes Foundation, providing for the education in 
England of bright young Americans. Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, 
in return for the promise of a dukedom in his native Scotland, was 
persuaded to assist in the plan, and in 1910 the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace was established. 

In 1939, a Rhodes Scholar and old-time one-worlder by the name of 
Clarence Streit wrote a book called Union Now, which advocated a 
gradual approach to final world union by way of regional unions, 
starting with the union between the U.S. and Britain. According to the 
Carnegie Year Book of 1940, the Carnegie Endowment for International 
Peace financed the placing of four hundred copies of the Streit book in 
libraries of the United States and sent over one thousand copies to 
carefully selected editors, newspapers, and journalists in the United 
States and Canada. Committees were set up all over America, and Mr. 
Streit reported that over two million Americans had signed petitions 
asking for union with Britain. In Union Now, Streit, who has been a 
close associate of Communists and socialists all his adult life, had 
said that the more complex the world becomes, "the more urgent [is] its 
need for world government." On page 256 of his book he stated: 

Into this world came Union Now, challenging the dogma of absolute 
national sovereignty and asserting that a world organization not only 
was necessary, but must be stronger than the League of Nations, must be 
based upon different principles, on citizenship rather than national 
sovereignty. It [Union Now] proclaimed the need of world government and 

insisted that no country needed this more urgently than the United 
States . 

In Streit's own words (page 257), Atlantic Union was the first 
step towards complete world government: "Union Now held the formation 
of a free federal government to be the 

eventual goal and urges the first step towards its Union Now of the 
democracies ..." 

In 1941, Streit published another book, entitled Union Now with 
Britain, in which he claimed that the union he advocated would be a 
step toward the formation of a free world government; but the book 
itself made it clear that by joining a union with other nations, 
America would be amalgamated with the socialist and Communist systems 
that existed in these other nations. 

In the Washington Evening Star of January 5, 1942, an ad appeared 
under the heading: "In Union Now Lies the Power to Win the War and the 
Peace - a Petition." The petition said: 

We gain from the fact that all the Soviet Republics are now 
united in one government, as also are all the Chinese-speaking peoples 
once so divided. Surely we and they must agree that union now of the 
democracies wherever possible is egually to the general advantage. Let 
us begin now a world United States. 

A resolution urged a federal union with common citizenship, 
direct taxation of citizens, responsibility for law enforcement, 
authority to coin and borrow money, a monopoly of armed forces, and the 
ability to admit new members. At one time Streit's organization favored 
including the Russians. 

On April 27, 1942, the board of directors of Federal Union 
adopted a new policy statement, which said: 

We believe that we can best preserve and extend those basic 
freedoms which are the heritage of western civilization by forming now 
. . . a federal union with those peoples with whom we have compelling 
natural ties .... We believe that the world imperatively needs an 
all-inclusive international organization in which the United States . . 
. Russia . . . and other powers known as the United Nations should take 
the lead. 

Following World War II, when the idea of forming a union 
with Russia became unpalatable to the American public, Streit, showing 
the agility possessed by all one-worlders, reversed his field and 
announced that Union Now would be a bulwark against world Communism! 

Streit, who may have gotten his ideas on Atlantic Union from 
various tracts on the subject published by the Fabian Socialist Society 
in England, clearly has no hostility towards collectivism. He said in 
Union Now: "Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between 
capitalism and collectivism, but it includes Marxist governments." 

In his pamphlets Streit asks the guestion: "Does the rise of 
socialism in some Western European democracies prevent our federating 
with them?" He answers with an emphatic "No!" 

Streit's organization to promote Union Now was called Federal 
Union, and was financed by grants from the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace, of which Communist spy Alger Hiss was later to 
become president. 

In March 1949, Federal Union set up a political action unit 
called the Atlantic Union Committee. The first president of this 
Committee was former Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts, who 
testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee in 1950 that 
joining Union Now would mean the United States government would have to 
surrender its rights and power to coin money, levy taxes and tariffs, 
regulate immigration, enact citizenship laws, declare war, and maintain 
standing armies. Roberts has said he considers national sovereignty a 
"silly shibboleth" and believes that U.S. and Western European union 
"must be built on a common citizenship . "4 

The Los Angeles Examiner on February 8, 1951, described what 
Atlantic Union meant to America: 

What Senator Kefauver actually is proposing is that the United 

States summon the nations of Western Europe and offer to 
abolish itself as a nation, surrendering its sovereign powers to those 
nations . 

They would impose their socialism in place of our republican 
self-government, extract taxes from us as they pleased, draft our men 
for their armies and our women for their factories, appropriate the 
bulk of our productive wealth for their own enrichment. 

How can any Senator or Representative elected to represent the 
people of the United States bring himself to advocate so clear a policy 
of national self-destruction? 

How can any adult American even consider such an idea? 

Yet less than a dozen years after its founding the Atlantic Union 
Committee had grown to eight hundred seventy-one wealthy and 
influential members, one hundred seven of whom were members of the CFR, 
and thirty, members of the United World Federalists. Elmo Roper (CFR 
and UWF) , the pollster, formerly President of the Atlantic Union 
Committee, in his book, The Goal Is Government of All the World, 
betrayed how Atlantic Union fits into the world government scheme: 

Some of us who have been interested in World Government for 
several years now have come together to form the Atlantic Union 
Committee. Our objective in this committee is to have the Congress pass 
a resolution supporting the call of a Constitutional Convention of at 
least the Atlantic Pact nations. 

Under the subtitle "How Federal Union Will Work," Mr. Roper 

Such a union would have the right to conduct foreign relations, 
maintain armed forces, issue currency, regulate commerce and 
communications between states in the union and grant citizenship. The 
union must have the power to tax .... There would be nothing, there 
must be nothing, in such a union which would be out of consonance with 
the aims and objectives of the United Nations. 

A resolution calling for an Atlantic Union Convention was 
introduced into Congress in 1949. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee 
took the lead in pushing the resolution, which had the support of 
Senators William Fulbright (CFR) , Hubert Humphrey (CFR) , Jacob Javits 
(CFR), Herbert Lehman (CFR), and Richard Nixon. Others in and out of 
Congress who supported this or succeeding bipartisan bills included 
William Benton (CFR) , John Foster Dulles (CFR) , Milton Eisenhower 
(CFR), Thomas Finletter (CFR), Henry Ford 11 (CFR), William C. Foster 

(CFR) , Clark Kerr (CFR) , Mr. Nixon's alter ego, Henry Kissinger (CFR) , 
John V. Lindsay (CFR), George C. Marshall (CFR), Eugene McCarthy (CFR), 
Charles S. Rhyne (CFR), Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (CFR), Adlai Stevenson 

(CFR), and Thomas Watson (CFR) . The bill has never passed Congress, 
although it has been introduced again and again by world government 
promoters, some calling themselves Democrats and some, Republicans. In 
February 1951, World Government News, the official publication of the 
United World Federalists (pages 8 and 9) , hailed Richard Nixon for 
sponsoring the Atlantic Union Resolution the second time it was 
introduced into the Senate. 

The one-world advocates never give up. John Foster Dulles, two 
days after he had been selected by President Eisenhower to be our 
Secretary of State, wired the Second Congress of the Atlantic Union 
Committee, which was meeting in Buffalo (November 22, 1952), expressing 
his support of their idea and suggesting that NATO be converted into a 
federal union. The NATO Treaty had been ratified in 1949, under Truman, 
as a military alliance to protect the free world against expanding 
Communism. Many had ideas of expanding this into a federal union. 

In an article on world government, U.S. News & World Report of 
February 24, 1956, stated: 

Among Republicans, President Eisenhower has endorsed the 
idea of some form of union. Vice-President Richard Nixon and Governor 
Christian Herter of Massachusetts, as members of the Senate and the 
House a few years ago, introduced resolutions calling for conventions 
to study the question of unity. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles 
has endorsed such a study. 

Not all Republicans, however, bought the globaloney. U.S. News & 
World Report quoted Senator Bricker of Ohio as calling the bill to set 
up an Atlantic Union convention an "exploration of the desirability of 
junking the American Declaration of Independence." Bricker regarded the 
plan as one under which "the United States would become a vassal 
province in a regional superstate evolving out of NATO, " and the 
American Bill of Rights would go down the drains 

Streit and his organization are undaunted by the fact that they 
have yet to force their plan past Congress, despite strong bipartisan 
support, and they continue to push and gain momentum. A report from 
Atlantic Union on the "Remarkable Advance of the Atlantic Federal Union 
Concept in 1966" boasted that Atlanticans had strong potential 
Presidential support. Freedom and Union magazine of March 1966 listed 
as backers who had endorsed the Atlantic Union Delegation Barry 
Goldwater, Mark Hatfield, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, George 
Romney, and William Scranton. Congressman Paul Findley (R.-Ill.), who 
introduced the latest Atlantic Union bill in Congress, stated: 

Based on these endorsements, I predict that the next Republican 
President will work to achieve Atlantic union .... Virtually all the 
presidential level leadership of the Republican party thus supports the 
most promising proposal for uniting free people since the American 
Revolution, 1776-89. 

Richard Nixon, in his letter of endorsement to Findley, said: "As 
Clarence Streit probably told you I have supported this resolution for 
many years and I wish you every success in 

your efforts." 6 During 1964 Nixon had taken time off from his campaign 
to send the committee this statement, dated September 1: "It is fitting 

that the United States, the world's first truly federal government, 
should be a main force behind the effort to find a basis for a broad 
federation of the Atlantica nations." The message forthrightly 
concluded: "The Atlantic Union Resolution is a forward-looking proposal 
which acknowledges the depth and breadth of the incredible change which 
is going on in the world around us. I urge its adoption." 

Nixon was merely echoing the beliefs and aims of Nelson 
Rockefeller. The same issue of Freedom and Union magazine guoted 
Rockefeller as maintaining: 

Our generation is called on for . . . political creativity and 
economic construction - on an inter-continental basis .... I have 
followed with sympathy and interest the development of the joint 
resolution [for an Atlantic Union Convention] and deeply believe that 
its enactment would be an historic milestone in the annals of human 
freedom and world peace. 

All this bipartisan support elated Streit, who gloated: 

In the past, the main support for Atlantic Union resolutions came 
from the Democrats; the Republicans - with notable exceptions - were 
indifferent or hostile. This year the proposal, without losing its 
Democratic backing, gained leadership at the presidential level. It 
also gained a higher percentage of support from Republican and 
Democratic membership in the House despite this being an election year. 
This advance is highly important for it insures full bi-partisan 
support should the President decide to lead toward Atlantic Union . . . 

Whenever Mr. Nixon has been gueried on his support of dissolving 
the United States into the new nation of Atlantica, he has vociferously 
denied that Atlantic Union has anything to do with mouse-trapping 
America into a world superstate, and his verbiage is designed to make 
it appear that anyone 

who intimates such a thing is guilty of a monstrous unfounded slander 
against him. Only those who have actually taken time to study the facts 
know who is doing the truth-twisting. Atlantic Union, which has a great 
deal of dual membership with UWF, makes no bones about the fact that it 
is the halfway house to world government. On the twenty-fifth 
anniversary of Atlantic Union in 1964, Clarence Streit admitted, once 
again, his organization's one world ambitions: 

The Atlantic Union it means to see constituted now will be but a 
nucleus designed to grow in peace through generations to come, until 
the Federation of the Free embraces the whole race of mortal man. 

Since becoming President, Mr. Nixon has remained very guiet about 
the Atlantic Union movement. No doubt, any move in this direction is 
being saved until after 1972. Atlantic Union, however, has not 
forgotten Mr. Nixon. At Federal Union's Award Dinner in Washington, 
D.C., on November 20, 1970, founder Clarence Streit presented the 
Atlantic Union Pioneer Award to Richard Nixon for eighteen years of 
championing the cause of establishing "the United States of Atlantica." 
The award bears this inscription: 

RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States. Farseeing 
Senator, he Cosponsored in 1951 the Original Atlantic Union Resolution. 

As Vice President, his Bold Action Led to the 1962 Atlantic Convention 
in Paris. Alone among Presidential Aspirants, he Wrote the 1966 House 
Hearing, Urging a Stronger Bill - Still Pending - With these Words that 
History will Remember: "The United States should be a Main Force" for a 
"Federation of Free Atlantic Nations ... In the Age of the Rocket, 
Dreams become Reality with a Speed Difficult to Imagine. The Atlantic 
Union Resolution ... a Forward-looking Proposal . . . Acknowledges 
the . . . Incredible Change Going on Around Us. I Urge its Adoption." 

Mr. Nixon has taken a major step toward surrendering American 
sovereignty with his advocacy of Senate ratification of the United 
Nations' Genocide Convention. This treaty is so Leftist-oriented and so 
dangerous that no President in twenty-one years has succeeded in 
shoving it through the Senate. The Genocide Convention was first 
submitted to the Senate by President Truman in 1950. Public opposition 
caused it to be bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
where it has lain dormant ever since. In 1953 President Eisenhower 
tried to get the treaty revivified and ratified, but opposition was too 
great and the attempt was abandoned. The same thing happened under 
President Johnson in 1966. Now President Nixon has put the prestige and 
pressure of his administration solidly behind the effort to obtain 
ratification, despite the fact that the American Bar Association has 
all along been on record as strongly opposing this giveaway of American 
rights and sovereignty. Liberal Democrats Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson 
could not achieve passage of this misnamed treaty, but Nixon may well 
succeed where others have failed, simply because most Americans accept 
the Madison Avenue image of Mr. Nixon as a staunch defender against the 

The convention was adopted by the U.N. in 1948, and since then 
some seventy-five nations have ratified the instrument, among them the 
Soviet Union - a sponsor of the treaty. Columnist James J. Kilpatrick 
comments : 

And if it seems remarkable that the masters of the Kremlin should 
have signed this document, wiping their hands still stained with the 
blood of Katyn, it is because the Genocide Convention does not apply to 
political or revolutionary groups. It applies only to "national, 
ethnical, racial or religious groups," and the Kremlin hardly ever 
seeks to eliminate them as such. The camps of Siberia house nothing but 

Kilpatrick continues: 

The Soviet Union's ratification of the treaty has this importance 
only: It is being used by proponents of the convention as a club for 
beating on the Senate. The Russians, we are told, are ashamed of the 
United States. How could we fail to embrace a treaty so enlightened and 

Yes, how could we fail to be suckered into this trap? Who could 
be opposed to a treaty outlawing the killing of human beings? The 
Washington Post has called our failure to ratify the treaty an 
"unsightly stain on the good name" of the U.S.A. Also demanding passage 
are such Leftist organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union 
(ACLU) , the American Humanist Committee, Americans for Democratic 
Action (ADA) , the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) , the Unitarian- 
Universalist Association, the United Auto Workers, the National Council 
of Churches, and the Communist Party. William Loeb, publisher of the 
Manchester (N.H.) Union Leadei, commented: 

. . . the genocide treaty is actually an old Communist trick: Put 
a nice label on something - like "home or mother" - and you can count 
on the customers (or the voters) not reading the fine print. It is in 
the fine print where the Communists hook you. The genocide treaty, if 
passed, would go far towards destroying freedom of speech for every 
American, it would put weapons in the hands of the state which could 
make it very easy to imprison almost any individual. 

The dangers in the United States' ratifying of the U.N.'s 
Genocide Convention were spelled out by Kilpatrick: 

One of the forbidden acts [of the Genocide Convention] is 
"causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group." Either 
"mental harm" means something, or it means nothing. It means, we must 
suppose, whatever it may some day be construed to mean by judges, 
foreign or domestic, presiding at the trial of some public official or 
private person charged with this gauzy crime. 

Another forbidden act is "deliberately inflicting on the group 
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction 
in whole or in part." Criminal statutes, we are taught, must be 
strictly construed. Who can construe this clause? What is meant, at 
another point, by "public incitement?" What is meant by "complicity in 
genocide?" Who knows?$ 

The treaty also provides for an "international penal tribunal" to 
have jurisdiction in such cases. This group would have the power to 
yank Americans before it and try them for the crime of causing "mental 
harm" to some minority group. We have had plenty of experience with 
civil rights groups seeing "racism" under every bed, and one can 
imagine that they would go hog-wild if they could haul any person or 
group against whom they have a gripe, real or imaginary, before a 
sympathetic group of international magistrates. This could conceivably 
lead to secret seizures, deportations, and trials. Americans would be 
stripped of the protections guaranteed them by the Constitution. Mr. 
Nixon made sure of this when as Vice President he worked behind the 
scenes to engineer the defeat of the Bricker Amendment, which would 
have guaranteed that no treaty could supersede the Constitution's 
protections. (See Chapter VI.) 

Columnist Holmes Alexander, in writing of Nixon's recommendation 
to the Senate (which, incidentally, has the backing of "Conservative" 
Attorney General John N. Mitchell), says, in effect, that the President 
is only kidding. Nixon, Alexander says, knows the tenor of the Senate 
and that it would not ratify so monstrous a thing. So, he writes, we 
shouldn't worry about Nixon's recommendation, no matter how dangerous 
it might be. As columnist John Synon remarked: 

How cynical. That's like saying not to worry about handing a 
loaded gun to a nitwit. The United States Senate, I'm here to tell you, 
is capable of ratifying anything, genocide, homicide, or suicide. 

The Senate will succeed in ratifying it only if a number of weak- 
kneed Republicans who would normally oppose it submit to threats, arm 
twisting, and promises of pork barrel projects for their home states. 

If Mr. Nixon has been only kidding about his devotion to forging 
the links in the chain of the World Superstate that is to be welded 
around America's wrists, then he is a consummate hypocrite. But his 
commitment to world government goes back nearly a guarter of a century, 

and indeed he would not now be in the White House if he were not 
committed to this ultimate goal of the Insiders. It is Mr. Alexander 
and the millions of other complacent Republicans who are fooling 
themselves by rationalizing that Mr. Nixon does not mean business every 
step of the way to world government. 

For those who can read between the lines, Mr. Nixon's devotion to 
world government is guite obvious. However, he never uses the term 
"world government," which would produce a strong reaction, but rather 
the euphemistic standard code words of the world government addicts, 
"world order." Mr. Nixon often speaks of "building a new world order," 
but that phrase is meaningless to all but a few. If the Insiders are 
successful, the "new world order" will probably be built, ultimately, 
on the existing U.N. structure. President Nixon has long been a U.N. 
enthusiast, despite the fact that, of all people, he knows best that 
the primary author of the U.N. Charter, Alger Hiss, was a Soviet spy - 
for he helped to convict him. Although the United Nations has lost much 
of its luster for the public, it has still been the beneficiary of the 
greatest propaganda build-up in history, despite the fact that its 
creation had the full support of the Communists. The Communists knew 
they could manipulate it, and Political Affairs, the official 
theoretical journal of the Communist Party, U.S.A., in its April 1945 
issue told the comrades: 

Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations 
policies should be built up, well organized, and articulate. But it is 
necessary to do more than that. The opposition must be rendered so 
impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant support in 
the Senate against the United Nations Charter and the treaties which 
are to follow. [Emphasis added.] 

Shortly after his election President Nixon and his Secretary of 
State-designate William Rogers visited "the house that Hiss built" (on 
land donated by the Rockefeller family), "so that by this visit," Nixon 
said, "we could indicate our continuing support of the United Nations 
and our intention in these years ahead to do everything that we can to 
strengthen this organization as it works in the cause of peace 
throughout the world. "9 

All of this really should not be surprising. The President was 
guoted in a favorable biography, Nixon, by Earl Mazo and Stephen Hess, 
as saying: "Am I a conservative or a liberal? My answer is that I'm an 
internationalist." 10 An internationalist is one who is not a 
nationalist. He is one who puts other nations, or the world, ahead of 
his own country. He is one who advocates peace by yoking America in an 
organization with the world's most murderous warmakers. He is one who 
believes that sovereignty over the United States should reside outside 
the United States. This may seem like a rather curious position for one 
who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, 
which set up a sovereign nation, but Mr. Nixon is not alone in this 
contradiction. It is the Liberal position, and Mr. Nixon has stated 
uneguivocally numerous times: "I'm a liberal on foreign policy." 11 But 
most people are not aware of this statement. They are only aware of his 
campaign oratory, in which he has denounced in the strongest possible 
terms the architects of disaster who have led America in stumbling from 
one foreign policy disaster to another for over 

twenty-five years. Once in office he followed the same pro-Communist 
policies as his predecessors. As ultra-Liberal Dr. Lincoln P. 
Bloomfield has explained: "If the communist dynamic was greatly abated 
the west might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." 

The reason that Mr. Nixon has followed the same policies, and even kept 
the same "architects" in positions of power, is that he is committed to 
these policies. If he were not, he would today be a prosperous lawyer 
in California, but a political has-been. 

Rather than a political has-been, Richard Nixon today is 
President of the United States. The Insiders reward well those who are 
willing to play their game. Many students of the Insiders' conspiracy 
believe that they intend to establish their totalitarian world 
superstate during Mr. Nixon's second term. It would doubtless come 
about through a series of precipitated and manipulated crises involving 
a world-wide monetary debacle, a major depression in America, major 
moves around the world by the Soviets, and possibly war in the Mid- 
East. World government would come as a savior, promising world peace 
and an end to the Communist threat. Most Americans would not realize 
until it is too late that the problems were created in order that world 
government might be accepted as a solution. 

A world government by its very nature must be a socialist 
government. The planners want to extend their plans over the entire 
world. The Insiders want to control the economy of the whole planet. A 
world government reguires a world supreme court, and Mr. Nixon is on 
record in favor of a world supreme court. And a world government must 
have a world police force to enforce the laws of the World Superstate 
and keep the slaves from rebelling. The Los Angeles Examiner of October 
28, 1950, reported that Congressman Richard Nixon had introduced a 
"resolution calling for the establishment of a United Nations police 
force . . . . " So we know where Mr. Nixon stands on that 
one! But why would Mr. Nixon want to see the United States sucked into 
the world government trap? Could it be that the Insiders have promised 
him that he will be the organization's first president? You must admit 
it beats being an attorney in bucolic Whittier. 


1. Plan for Peace, New York, Institute for International Order, 

2. Quoted from United World Federalists pamphlet, "We Believe in 
World Peace Through World Law." 

3. Ibid. 

4. Human Events, March 5, 1955. 

5. U.S. News & World Report, February 24, 1956, p. 82. 

6. Freedom and Union, March 1966, p. 9. 

7. Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1970. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Indianapolis Star, December 18, 1968. 

10. Quoted in Indianapolis News, August 11, 1968. 

11. Ibid. 

The More It Changes 

The cornerstone of Richard Nixon's rise to political power was 
staunch opposition to both Communism and Socialism. In fact Nixon often 
equated Communism and Socialism; that was one of his traits that most 
infuriated Liberals. Nixon knew that Karl Marx in his Communist 
Manifesto of 1848 had used the words interchangeably. It is not for 
nothing that Russia calls itself the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics. As Nixon so eloquently stated it in 1952: 

There's one difference between the Reds and Pinks. The Pinks want 
to socialize America. The Reds want to socialize the world and make 
Moscow the world capital. Their paths are similar; they have the same 
Bible - the teachings of Karl Marx. 1 

The basis of socialism is "big government" - bureaucracy, 
controls, deficit spending, and inflation. Socialism is the road to 
total government. When you get there you have Communism. Nixon once 
remarked, "... I don't want any part of any road - middle, right or 
left - which eventually leads to total government . "2 

In a pamphlet entitled "The Nixon Stand," Nixon said: "If I were 
to pick one major issue in this 1968 election in which the candidates 
have a basic disagreement, it is with regard to the role of government. 
There are some who believe the way to a better society is for 
government to get bigger and bigger - which means the rights and 
responsibilities of people will get smaller and smaller .... "3 


"The choice we face today, " he maintained at one point in the 
campaign, "very simply is this: Do we continue down a road that leads 
to big government and little people, or do we take a new road, one that 
taps the energies of the greatest engine of productivity the world has 
ever seen - the engine of American industry and American private 
enterprise? . . . Private enterprise, far more efficiently than the 
government, can provide the jobs, train the unemployed, build the 
homes, offer the new opportunities which will produce progress - not 
promises - in solving the problems of America. "4 

In opposing "big government" Nixon was not only doing what was 
morally right, he was doing what was politically right. An August 1968 
Gallup Poll showed that 46 per cent of Americans felt that "big 
government" was the "biggest threat to the country." This was 
contrasted to only 14 per cent who felt that way in 1959. Gallup 
commented: "Although big government has been a favorite Republican 
target for many years, rank and file Democrats are nearly as critical 
of growing Federal power as are Republicans . "5 However, a clue as to 
what would actually happen during the Nixon administration was given in 
the February 3, 1969 issue of the Wall Street Journal: 

A trio of Nixon Administration Cabinet officials gave a partial 
picture of how "Great Society" programs will fare under the 
Republicans . 

There won't be any attempt to dismantle the Johnson 
Administration programs, nor will there be a major effort to expand 
public spending for them. 

Instead, there will be a general tidying up through much 
Governmental reorganization, a minimum of new legislation and a major 

effort to involve private industry, voluntary agencies and other 
nongovernmental entities in the cause of social change . 6 

And NEA columnist Bruce Biossat revealed that despite all the 
"very sincere" campaign rhetoric: 

No one in the top Nixon entourage really imagines that the 
federal government is going to be reduced in size. Its bigness in a big 
and growing country is accepted as inescapable. 

The task is to make the bigness work and, critically, to persuade 
the American people that federal actions - and the lesser actions of 
state and local governments - really end up getting things done which 
affect people who have problems they need to have solved.? 

In other words, the Nixon administration gave up on fulfilling that 
campaign promise even before Inauguration Day. This might lead one to 
believe that Nixon and his cohorts were never very sincere about doing 
battle with the Democrat-instituted welfare state in the first place. 
There was a time when Richard Nixon denounced such "me-tooism" in no 
uncertain terms. He told a Los Angeles crowd on April 20, 1949: 

There are some who believe that the only way we can win is to go 
down the road with the Democratic Party on a me-too basis, except that 
we should go them one better. It is true that such a program might win 
for us, but in winning this way, we would be abdicating our 
responsibilities to the people. 8 

But it was obvious by Nixon's appointment of such welfare-staters 
as Robert Finch and George Romney that the Great Society was home safe. 
We were going to have efficiently administered socialism under the 
Elephant Brigade. Surely anybody could run a bureaucracy more 
efficiently than the spendocrat donkeys. After taking office, however, 
the GOP found that trying to make socialism efficient was like trying 
to make the Pacific dry. The Nixon administration abandoned its solemn 
pledge to fight big government, and began expanding it on all fronts. 
This move was indicated in the staccato-style "Newsgram" in U.S. News & 
World Report of February 2, 1970: 

As Mr. Nixon's plans, sketched in his state-of-the-union speech, 
take hold: Washington will move even deeper into people's lives. For 
example - 

Education, over the long haul, will be financed more by 
Washington. School districts are showing they want additional U.S. 
money to save local taxes. 

Welfare, under the program drawn up by Mr. Nixon, is to be based 
on more uniform standards set in Washington, money paid out by 
Washington . 

Housing, once a local matter, is to rely further on federal 
decisions. Much the same goes for health. The drift forecast by high 
officials is toward some sort of national health-payment arrangement 

"Consumerism, " as it begins to work, is seen as pointing toward 
additional federally set standards for goods used by nearly everybody. 

It's to be federal money that pays for many new local police 
facilities . 

"New Federalism," as conceived by Mr. Nixon, is based on 
returning more money collected by Washington to the States. But it is 

to be Congress and the President who decide on the tax rates that 
produce the money. 

What the nation seems to be approaching is general agreement that 
big problems are to be handled via Washington. Reform movements in this 
country almost always follow that path. Mr. Nixon's is no exception. 

That thinking will accelerate as the nation becomes more 
populous, urban areas sprawl across State lines, business and 
communications ties tighten. 

States are seen to be hunting a new role, not really sovereign. 

"Conservatives" will object. "Liberals" will complain Mr. Nixon 
isn't moving fast enough. But the President will try to please the 
center majority. 

Traditional pump priming - very easy money, big Government 
spending - would risk a new burst of inflation, it is reasoned. 
Planning, instead, is emphasizing Government training programs for the 
jobless . 

Next step would be new methods of inducing companies to hire the 
newly trained. Tax incentives, Government subsidies will be mulled. 

The day when Government guarantees everyone a job may not be far 

When it comes to the federal budget, about to be unveiled, note 
this : 

Seeds being planted now by Mr. Nixon and Congress point to bigger 
spending in years beyond 1971. Specifics are beginning to take shape. 

The idea that, because the country is getting bigger or we have 
more technology, the government is forced to become Big Brother is 
fallacious. Actually, the bigger the country, the less able the central 
government is to govern efficiently. 

During the 1960 's, the size of the federal government, and of 
federal spending, fairly exploded. Roger Freeman, a scholar at the 
Hoover Institute at Stanford University and a former member of the 
White House staff, pointed out: 

More than half of the $129 billion increase in federal 
expenditures between fiscal 1953 and 1971 was applied to social 
purposes, less than one-fifth to defense. Defense meanwhile shrank from 
64 percent of the federal budget to 36 percent, from 13.6 percent of 
the Gross National Product to about 7.2 percent. 

In other words, the share of federal revenues and of the Gross 
National Product allocated to national defense has been cut almost in 
half since 1953. Most of the huge savings were applied to social 
purposes, with education one of the main gainers. 

Columnist Paul Scott revealed that under Nixon defense spending 
is shrinking, while spending on social welfare programs is expanding: 

While everybody has been talking about the need for reordering 
national priorities, a dramatic change in government spending already 
has taken place. 

For the first time since World War II, federal expenditures this 
year for health, education, welfare and labor programs will exceed 
defense expenditures . 

This highly significant change in national priorities was 
highlighted by the recent passage in the House of appropriation bills 
for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education & Welfare. 

These giant money bills, the largest in history, contain an 
estimated $74.3 billion for social programs. This compares with the 
$73.6 national defense spending budget now pending before Congress and 
which is expected to be reduced further. In 1953, federal expenditures 
for national defense totaled $49.4 billion as compared to $7.1 billion 
for the government's social programs. 9 

Some diligent soul who made a count of the number of federal 
administrative agencies came up with more than 2,400 - most of them, 
probably, un-Constitutional . Congressman William Roth (R.-Del.) 
assigned to staff members the task of calculating the number of federal 
aid programs in existence, and the total came to 1,315 as of September 
1969, 225 more than the previous year. According to Congressman Wright 
Patman there are nearly 1,600 advisory committees and commissions in 
the executive branch alone. By early in his administration, Richard 
Nixon had added forty to the total. 

Of these 5,315 programs, bureaus, and commissions, Mr. Nixon 
announced that he had found fifty-seven that could be dispensed with. 
For example, Mr. Nixon believed that the Republic could survive without 
a bureau of tea tasters. But, alas, at last report, most of the fifty- 
seven bureaus, including the doughty tea tasters, had survived the axe, 
proving once again that old bureaus never die, and they seldom even 
fade away. It is not as if there were not plentiful targets for Mr. 
Nixon's scalpel in the budget and the bureaucracy if he were sincerely 
interested. But Richard Nixon came to Washington not to bury big 
government, but to multiply it. 

The major cause of the phenomenal mushrooming of big government 
has been the fantastic expansion of "Welfare" in 
all its forms and guises. During his successful guest for the 
Presidency, Republican candidate Richard Nixon told the National 
Alliance of Businessmen: 

As we look through the ages - and welfare is not new - we have 
found that inevitably when such programs continue and escalate in any 
society, welfare tends to destroy those who have received it and to 
corrupt those who dispense it. 

It was sixteen months later, as President-elect, that Mr. Nixon 
again addressed himself to the subject of "Welfare." This time he was 
speaking before an assembly of the nation's Governors at Colorado 
Springs : 

We confronted the fact that in the past five years the Federal 
Government alone spent more than a guarter of a trillion dollars on 
social programs - more than $250 billion. Yet far from solving our 
problems, these expenditures had reaped a harvest of dissatisfaction, 
frustration and bitter division. 

Never in human history has so much been spent by so many for such 
a negative result .... 

Mr. Nixon was not exaggerating. U.S. News & World Report for 
January 13, 1969, revealed that the number of Americans receiving 
"Welfare" had jumped over 50 per cent during a decade of unparalleled 
prosperity, and by the end of 1968 it totaled nearly 10 million 
persons. The Washington Evening Star informed us that "Welfare" rolls 
across the country were proliferating at the astonishing rate of 
200,000 per month. In its issue of February 3, 1969, U.S. News added: 

In the past eight years, federal spending for education, old-age 
pensions, health, handouts to the poor and all other "social welfare" 
has jumped to 61 billions a year. Add the more than 51 billions spent 
by State and local governments for similar aid, and the bill exceeds 
112 billions a year . 

. . . It is 40 percent more than the U.S. spends annually for 
defense, including war in Vietnam. 

In addition to the $112.4 billion spent by government at all 
levels for "social programs," private welfare outlays amount to another 
$50.7 billion - a total of $163.1 billion. This, said U.S. News & World 
Report, accounts for almost 20 per cent of the entire U.S. output of 
goods and services. The same source informs us that 36 per cent of all 
federal spending, and 44 per cent of all state spending, now falls 
within the category of "social welfare." This makes expenditure for 
such handouts second only to that for national defense. 

Yet, U.S. News noted, despite these absolutely staggering 
figures, "all ideas with official backing seem to point in only one 
direction: toward bigger, costlier relief experiments." At the federal 
level alone there are now 112 poverty aid programs, handled by eleven 
separate agencies; sixty-nine vocational programs, operated by eight 
different federal agencies; and forty-three separate programs for 
children, administered by five different agencies. 

While millions of jobs go begging, the number of those on 
"Welfare" is increasing nationally at an annual rate of 10 per cent 
compounded. Yet the Wall Street Journal reported on April 24, 1969: 

President Nixon has asked his top domestic policy experts to 
explore a deeply perplexing social phenomenon .... In short, the 
Great Society enlarged the demand for welfare and also increased its 
supply . 

"My main conclusion is that the increase in the caseload is a 
good thing. More eligible families are getting assistance, so the 
system is in this sense working better, " sums up one White House 
welfare specialist. This judgment is shared by many other Nixon 
Administration officials .... 

Assuming that President Nixon's figure of $50 billion per year 
for "Welfare" over the past five years was approximately accurate, the 
average American family pays about $1,250 per 

year in direct and indirect taxes to support those who can't or won't 
support themselves. This means the average productive American has 
during the last half-decade paid out $6,250, and worked approximately 
3,000 hours, to support these programs. Yet, assuming that there are 
approximately four million families in America living in poverty, every 
one of these families could have had a tax-free income of $12,500 per 
year with the amount of money already being spent. Probably as much as 
one-half to three-fourths of this money goes for overhead and salaries 
for the povertycrats, with probably less than 25 per cent of "Welfare" 
expenditures ever reaching the hands of the poor. Even so, although 
figures vary from state to state and according to the size of the 
family and other circumstances, monthly direct cash payments to 
"Welfare" recipients in industrial states now average $250 to $300 per 
family unit - more income than is provided by the Congress for many of 
our military families. 

In addition, according to U.S. News & World Report of April 28, 
1969, a total of 3.8 million Americans each year now receive from the 

taxpayers some 24.7 pounds of free food per month - including flour, 
canned meat, raisins, butter, lard, and seventeen other staples. 

The federal Food Stamp Program (which has been greatly expanded) 
provides food at a discount of roughly 33 per cent to 2.9 million 
Americans who have been enticed onto the dole. In addition, 2.3 million 
children receive free school lunches from the government and an 
additional 16.7 million get subsidized lunches, while 200,000 
youngsters receive free breakfasts under a recently initiated program. 
Most of these giveaway schemes have received Congressional 
appropriations for expansion approximately 25 per cent during the 
coming year. 

It has been estimated by U.S. News & World Report that in order 
to equal the value of cash, food, medical and 

recreational services available without charge and tax-free to those 
who find it convenient to live idly on "Welfare" at the expense of 
their working fellows, the average taxpayer would have to earn in 
excess of $7,000 per year. The difference is the 2,000 hours of toil 
which the working taxpayer must put in each year to earn a living, 
while the "Welfare" people sit fatly on their government checks. 

Exactly one year from the day the Republican Party nominated him 
for President, Richard Nixon summarily preempted national television 
time to spell out "his" revolutionary new "Welfare" program. The 
President damned the current system in the strongest terms and proposed 
that the variegated state welfare programs be replaced by a federal 
minimum floor for "Welfare" recipients in every state plus subsidies to 
the "working poor" and a gigantic job-training program. The President's 
scheme was described in U.S. News & World Report for August 25, 1969: 

If enacted by Congress, the Nixon proposal would more than double 
the number of people on relief, triple the number of children receiving 
assistance and add almost 4 billion dollars to the federal costs of 
welfare in the first full year of operation. At that time, according to 
Administration estimates, there would be at least 22.4 million people 
receiving Government aid, or 1 out of every 9 Americans .... 

Relief recipients in the nation would then exceed the total 
population of such a large State as California - 19.3 million - or New 
York - 18.1 million. Total cost to taxpayers would run around 15 
billion dollars a year in federal, State and local funds.* 

According to Ted Lewis of the New York Daily News, much of the 
philosophy behind Nixon's proposals came from 

*After Nixon presented his "New Federalism" [the name apparently taken 
from a book by that title written by Nelson Rockefeller] to assembled 
Governors in Colorado Springs a month later, the Governors demanded 
that the federal government take over all "Welfare" financing. The lone 
dissenting voice was that of Lester Maddox of Georgia. 
Lyndon Johnson's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, John 
Gardner - a key Insider and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, 
who has recently organized "Common Cause, " a grass-roots lobbying 
organization aimed at establishing a total Marxist state through 
federal legislation. According to Lewis, Mr. Nixon sent the following 
note to HEW Secretary Finch: 

"John Gardner's Godkin lectures (attached) express better than anything 
I have yet read what I hope will serve as the basic philosophy of this 

administration. I commend them for your weekend reading. Sincerely, 
RMN . " 

* x 

The lectures referred to were delivered at Harvard College by 
LBJ's onetime HEW Secretary Gardner, who guit the Johnson cabinet in a 
dispute over welfare methods .... 

None of the significant tasks can be accomplished, said Gardner, 
"if we are unwilling to tax ourselves." 

Then Presidential Assistant Daniel P. Moynihan, a Liberal 
Democrat and member of the board of directors of the socialist ADA, who 
was largely responsible for drafting the Nixon "Welfare" program, 

What the President really has done is make an historic and 
fundamental assertion of national responsibility to provide minimum 
incomes to poor people, stop taxing them, start supplementing their 
incomes and help the states find enough resources to do this. 

The response from the Left to the President's Family Assistance 
Plan (FAP) proposal was nearly unanimous approval. Republican Battle 
Line guoted a Democratic leader: "If this plan goes through, Richard 
Nixon will take over Hubert Humphrey's constituency and George 
Wallace's too." Writing in the Chicago Tribune for August 17, 1969, 
Walter Trohan guoted another top Democrat: " "I wish we had 
thought of it, ' a top economic advisor for Lyndon B. Johnson told this 
commentator. "It's a marvelous vote catcher."' The New York Times' 
James Reston, spokesmanapparent for the Establishment now that Walter 
Lippmann has hung up his typewriter, was even more effusive: 

. . . . He [Nixon] has been denouncing the "welfare state" for 20 
years, but he is now saying that poverty in America in the midst of 
spectacular prosperity is intolerable and must be wiped out .... 

A Republican president has condemned the word "welfare, " 
emphasized "work" and "training" as conditions of public assistance, 
suggested that the states and the cities be given more federal money to 
deal with their social and economic problems, but still comes out in 
the end with a policy of spending more money for relief of more poor 
people than the welfare state Democrats ever dared to propose in the 
past . 

This is beginning to be the story of American politics .... 

. . . And now on the most controversial guestion of domestic 
policy, he changes the rhetoric, the philosophy and the administration, 
but proposes more welfare, more people on public assistance, which will 
take more federal funds than any other president in the history of the 
Republic .... 

Nevertheless, Nixon has taken a great step forward. He has 
cloaked a remarkably progressive [sic] welfare policy in conservative 
language .... 

. . . He has repudiated his own party's record on social policy 
at home and even his own hawkish attitudes abroad, and this tells us 
something both about the President and the country. 

For he has obviously concluded that the American people are for 
peace abroad and for a more decent distribution of wealth at home, and 
the chances are that this will prove to be both good policy and good 
politics . 

A week later Reston crowed that Nixon was "zig-zagging to the 
left." The New Republic's T.R.B. also formally welcomed Nixon into the 
Fabian underworld with a column titled "Nixon Outsmarting Democrats": 

Most important, for the first time in U.S. history he accepted 
the idea of a national minimum income for all Americans. It would cover 
not merely the poor-who-get-aid but the previously excluded "working 
poor." We have waited for it all these years. This is a new ball game; 
it's here and it's irreversible . 

. . . The disparity between the haves and have-nots is so great 
that no random plan can deal with it, we think, and it can only yield 
to a national, comprehensive plan. Mr. Nixon may not realize it, but 
that's what he has started .... 

. . . And the plan does provide a platform to build on. This is 
the first national minimum income program for all Americans. It's the 
start of systematic income maintenance. Every sign points to the 
direction in which the country will go. 

The socialist New Republic was not shy about calling a shovel a 
shovel. It cheered that the President's proposals amount to "creeping 
socialism." One read with a gasp: "It must have been guite a scene, the 
Camp David cabinet meeting at which President Nixon informed the 
Neanderthal men that he had accepted and would assert creeping 
socialism, the principle of the Federal Government guaranteeing a 
minimum income to all disadvantaged Americans." 

The Washington Post's Roscoe Drummond went even further, 
commenting : 

Whatever happened to conservative Richard Nixon? 

Here he is in the lead for the most far-ranging, groundbreaking, 
daring, social-welfare reform since the early years of the New Deal . . 

Strange to contemplate but the time may come when people will 
think of Richard M. Nixon as the Republican Franklin D. Roosevelt of 
the 1970s! 

Newsweek also called the plan "Nixon's New Deal" and guoted 
elated Leftists in praise of the proposals: 

"I'm both amazed and pleased," applauded Walter Heller, John 
Kennedy's chief economic advisor and pioneer advocate of 
Federal welfare minimums .... Some Johnson Administration veterans 
stared enviously at plans thought too radical in their time. Campaign 
supporters of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy spotted causes that 
their own candidates had championed .... It was the finest hour in a 
much-buffeted six months for Pat Moynihan and HEW ' s Secretary Robert 
Finch .... Richard Nixon . . . confided to a friend his conviction 
that [referring to Disraeli] "Tory men with liberal principles are what 
has enlarged democracy in this world." 

It is ironic that Richard Nixon should guote the man who started 
England on the road from empire to mini-state, if less so that RMN 
should be praised for his Liberalism and compared with FDR. 

Of course, it is the "forgotten Americans," to whom Nixon 
appealed so successfully during his campaign, who will have to pay for 
what will amount to 20 million additional drones on the "Welfare" 
rolls. In its issue of August 25, 1969, U.S. News & World Report noted: 

Once on the books, programs are rarely, if ever, cut back .... 

Experts are already talking about 30 to 40 billion dollars a year 
as eventual cost for a fully developed system of minimum income for 

Frank S. Meyer, the remaining hard-line Conservative on the staff 
of National Review, characterized the President's plan in these words: 

The Nixon welfare program is a program for progressive 
pauperization of an increasing section of the American people. It was 
just such pauperization that was one of the outstanding causes and 
symptoms of the decay of Rome. For "bread and circuses," substitute a 
federal dole and a television set in every welfare home. 

Marxists have long cherished dreams of a federally guaranteed 
annual income for America. Previously Nixon had 

staunchly opposed the Marxist guaranteed annual income. "Nixon's the 
One" who said, while campaigning on May 15, 1968: 

One of the reasons I do not accept ... a guaranteed annual 
income or a negative income tax is because of my conviction that doing 
so, first, would not end poverty, and second, while it might be a 
substitute for welfare, it would have a very detrimental effect on the 
productive capacity of the American people . . . that is why I take a 
dim view of these programs, to 

The American Conservative Union noted: 

Despite his flat denial that he was proposing a guaranteed annual 
income, President Nixon's "family assistance plan" is just that. 
Numerous welfare experts noted that this principle is central to 
Nixon's plans, and conservatives fear this will open the door to even 
higher minimum incomes guaranteed for all. Public opinion polls have 
shown the great majority of Americans opposed to such a scheme because 
of what liberals sneeringly call "the Puritan Ethic, " the popularly 
supported theory that every man should work for an income. 

A year later Nixonites were admitting that the FAP was a 
guaranteed annual income, a tacit confession that earlier they had been 
prevaricating. 1' 

While the Nixon scheme would replace the much criticized Aid for 
Dependent Children, it would only increase the incentive for reliefers 
to produce more children. Let us inspect the conseguences of Mr. 
Nixon's breed-and-f eed program. 

Suppose a man and a "Welfare mother, " who may be absolute 
strangers, decide to spend the night together communing with their 
natures. For his moments with this Venus, the man may pay by spending 
two months with Mercury, but the taxpayers will pay for that evening of 
pleasure for at least the next twenty-one years, and probably 
for the next seventy-five. In addition, the chances are great that the 
first illicit offspring will be the starting point for another 
geometric progression of "Welfare" recipients whose status will 
thereafter be "guaranteed." 

What is the original father's responsibility? From a practical 
standpoint, none. To the mother, the child is a guaranteed annual meal 

ticket. What is your responsibility? We are told by Mr. Nixon that it 
is your responsibility over the lifetime of that child to labor 
thousands of hours, and to deny the fruits of your labor to your own 
children, in order to support the offspring of such brood-mothers. This 
is euphemistically called "having a social conscience." It has a more 
accurate name but, alas, that name is inappropriate for repetition 
here . 

We are told that birth control will be introduced into the Nixon 
program at some point, but of course birth control tablets and devices 
are readily available now. It is not because of ignorance or poverty 
that they are not used. While the brood-mothers may be school dropouts, 
they are graduates cum laude of the university of the street, and are 
anything but ignorant when it comes to sex. They are simply in the baby 
business for fun and profit. And some of them are brazen enough to be 
proud of it. 

In the best Orwellian fashion, Richard Nixon berated the 
centralization of power in Washington over the past thirty years, and 
then proposed to nationalize "Welfare" under Mr. Rockefeller's 
misnomer, "the New Federalism." Those already familiar with the result 
of federal intervention in public schools, labor disputes, legislative 
redistricting, and alleged job discrimination can hardly applaud now 
what they have opposed for so long. 

Yet even as Mr. Nixon was beguiling the Governors with offers of 
federal money with no strings attached, John Price, a former leader of 
the Leftist "Republican" Ripon Society, now on the staff of Daniel P. 
Moynihan, was telling editors in 

Chicago on August twelfth that if the states refused to go along with 
federal "Welfare" standards, the Administration would have to 
"blackjack the states" by withholding funds until they complied. 

The part of Mr. Nixon's plan that was most appealing to the 
public was the tying of "Welfare" funds to jobs or job-training 
programs. Yet this idea has more holes than Swiss cheese. As Human 
Events pointed out: 

The President himself left a large loophole for those who don't 
want to accept work by stressing that any job must be "suitable." Who 
will determine the "suitability" of a job? . . . 

What assurances, moreover, does the taxpayer have that those 
eligible for work will actually be forced to find work or seek job 
training? Will the Administration set up some tough enforcement 
machinery or, as is likely, permit soft-hearted social agencies to 
monitor this most important task? . . . 

Want to bet? 

The President's "reform" invites even more cheating and fraud 
than is presently found in the "Welfare" system. Human Events reminded 
us : 

Moreover, the entire program could become a bonanza for chiselers 
and loafers - just as have many welfare schemes in the past. Applicants 
for family allowances, for instance, would not be subject to much 
scrutiny. To receive a government check, all they would have to do 
would be to fill out a simple statement of need, saying what they 
expect their income to be in the benefit year. Monthly amounts would be 
mailed directly to recipients from a central federal agency, without 
preliminary investigation .... 

Most Conservatives have concluded that the President's proposed 
reforms are no reforms at all. As with the war in Vietnam, Americans 
are offered a choice between false alternatives. Everything Mr. Nixon 
has said in indicting the current "Welfare" system is true, but his 
proposals for reform 

originated with the same Fabian Socialists who put the country into the 
current "Welfare" guagmire. It's an escalation of more of the same. 

Regardless of the good intentions of many legislators, the only 
real solution to this nightmare - a salvation from the fate which 
befell Rome - is to take "Welfare" out of the hands of the politicians 
and social workers. After all, according to U.S. News & World Report, 
Americans voluntarily give $55 billion a year in private charity, and 
would give much more to truly good causes if they were relieved of the 
enormous current tax burden. 

The alternative to phasing our current system into a private one 
is to go the route of Rome and be overrun by armies of the poor 
demanding bread and circuses while threatening revolution. As taxes go 
higher and higher to support ever higher and higher "Welfare" benefits, 
more and more Americans, either by choice or because of circumstances, 
will desert to the ranks of the parasite class. Eventually the remnant 
of the American middle-class will be caught in a vise between the 
Fabians above and the proletarian army below. 

The second major ingredient of the President's "New Federalism" 
is revenue sharing with the states. Although the first part of the "New 
Federalism" involves a large step towards centralization and 
nationalization of welfare, "revenue sharing" is promoted as a major 
step toward decentralization. As part of the propaganda to sell this 
program Nixon has stated: 

A third of a century of centralizing power and responsibility in 
Washington has produced a burocratic monstrosity, cumbersome, 
unresponsive, ineffective .... After a third of a century of power 
flowing from the people and the states to Washington it is time for a 
new federalism in which power, funds, and responsibility will flow from 
Washington to the states and the people. 12 

As usual, Nixon promotes more socialism, but describes the problems in 
very Conservative terms. Machiavelli and Orwell would have been proud 
of him. Theoretically, the grants to the states and local governments 
are to have "no strings attached, " just as were Federal Aid to 
Education grants. But Nixon's aides privately admit the grants are just 
bait to further centralize power in the federal government. Even Mr. 
Nixon hinted at this when he made his proposals: 

Consider for a moment the name of this nation: the United States 
of America. We establish minimum national standards because we are 
united; we encourage local supplements because we are a federation of 
States, and we care for the unfortunate because this is America. 13 

Only the most politically naive could believe that the Nixon 
program would actually decentralize power. As James J. Kilpatrick 
remarked: "... this power to control follows the Federal dollar as 
surely as that famous lamb accompanied little Mary." Nixon's revenue- 
sharing program actually centralizes the power it pretends to 
decentralize. The Supreme Court has ruled, in this instance guite 
logically, that whatever the federal government finances it can 
control. As soon as the states and local governments get hooked on the 
federal funds, the controls will be put on just as they were in 

education, agriculture, and every other field the government has 
attempted to take over by first subsidizing it. No political 
institution of any kind, at any time in history, ever gave away 
anything on a no-strings-attached basis. You can't decentralize 
government by centralizing the tax collections. 

House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills has called the 
revenue-sharing plan a "trap" that "could become a massive weapon 
against the independence of state and local government." The plan, said 
Mills, "goes in the direction of centralized government." la 
The Administration, for instance, does not propose to 
simultaneously phase out other programs while phasing in revenue 
sharing. Not at all. The revenue-sharing proposal will be just one more 
layer of programs piled onto the thousands that already exist. 

The plan would not reduce state or local taxes, but merely add on 
to federal taxes. Indeed, according to Dr. Arthur Burns, it could raise 
state and local taxes. Republican Battle Line reported: 

Indeed, the revenue-sharing provision of the Nixon Plan might 
lead to even higher state taxes, admitted presidential aide Dr. Arthur 
Burns, because the Federal share paid to each state would be based on 
the state's matching taxes; the higher the state tax, the more they 
would get back from Washington. Is 

Human Events added: 

There are other drawbacks as well. Some officials have admitted 
to a haunting fear of tax sharing because so many existing federal aid 
programs are "open-end." The cost to the U.S. government is limited 
only by the ability and willingness of states to come up with matching 
funds. What would happen, it is asked, if states were to use their tax- 
sharing money to match federal grants under old programs? Says one 
official: "They could bleed the Treasury white with its own money." 16 

Representative John Byrnes (R.-Wis.), the ranking Republican on 
Ways and Means, also looks at revenue sharing with a jaundiced eye. 
Speaking to a legislative committee of the Appleton City Council in 
Appleton, Wisconsin, Byrnes said: 

In the first place, there just isn't any federal revenue to share. 
We had a federal funds deficit of $10 billion in the 1970 fiscal year; 
the way Congress is spending money now we are looking at another 
deficit for this year at least as great and probably much higher. The 
federal government has nothing to share with the states except a 
federal debt of $380 billion .... 

The crucial error in revenue sharing is that it encourages 
irresponsible spending. It does so by removing from one set of 
legislators the onus of levying taxes to pay for the spending they 
authorize, thus eliminating the best restraint we have against 
unjustifiable spending .... 

The first path to wisdom is to recognize that all levels of 
government are sgueezing blood from the same turnip - the American 
taxpayer, and that no gimmick, such as revenue sharing, to disguise 
which level is putting on the pressure, is going to make it any easier 
for him. 17 

Revenue sharing is another way of passing the buck figuratively 
and literally. The real problem is to keep government from spending so 

much money in the first place, not to find new ways to filch revenues 
from other government levels. If Richard Nixon were really interested 
in "returning power to the people, " he would simply cut federal 
spending instead of escalating it as he has done. In the Nixon scheme 
of things, "power to the people" is really a sleight-of-hand procedure 
resulting in "power to the President." 

While he is looking around for places to slice the budget, Mr. 
Nixon might consider the foreign aid program. Richard Nixon has always 
been a super-staunch supporter of foreign aid, since this is a CFR 
sacred cow. But during his campaign he implied (though, of course, he 
never actually stated) that foreign aid would be slashed during a Nixon 
administration. He told audiences that "the whole foreignaid program 
needs a complete reevaluation, " and let his hearers come to their own 
conclusions as to what he really meant by the statement. On another 
occasion during the campaign Nixon proclaimed: 

. . . All of America's foreign commitments must be reappraised. 
Over the past 25 years America has provided more than 150 billion 
dollars in foreign aid ... I say the time has come for other nations 
of the free world to bear their fair share of the burden. 1$ 

Naturally that implication was music to taxpayers' ears. Behind 
the scenes Nixon was taking a typically eguivocal and cynical stand on 
the subject of foreign aid. Time magazine of July 26, 1968, reported 
that Nixon, at a breakfast of GOP Congressmen, gave this answer to a 
question on how to vote on the foreign aid bill: "If I came from a 
tight district, I'd vote against it. If I did not - and it would not 
defeat me I'd vote for it . . . ." This was the type of leadership, 
morality, and integrity that the nation's voters were being asked to 
rally behind. Time admitted: "Some Republicans were dismayed by Nixon's 
advice." It has long troubled Nixon supporters who worked closely with 
him that on many issues he had two opinions, a private one and a public 
stand that differed from it. This is why many of his strongest 
supporters from the early days have abandoned him. They could not take 
the two-faced actions any more. Some have gone beyond referring to him 
as "Tricky Dick" and have hung the appellation "Mr. Conniver" on him. 

Once in office, Nixon asked for foreign aid to be raised by $900 
million, declaring: U.S. assistance [to foreign nations] is essential 
to express and achieve our national goals in the international 
community - a world order of peace and justice. '9 Note the phrases 
"international community" and "world order" - typical code words for 
"world government," with which Nixon always laces his foreign policy 
speeches. He has said: 

Foreign aid must be seen for what it is - not a burden, but an 
opportunity to help others to fulfill their aspirations for justice, 
dignity, and a better life. No more than at home can peace be achieved 
and maintained without vigorous efforts to meet the needs of the less 
fortunate . 2 ° 

We can carry the world on our backs, but we cannot stand alone. 
If we really wanted to help the rest of the world we would encourage 
them to cure their backwardness the same 

way we did - by replacing feudalism and socialism with the free 
enterprise system. Meanwhile, starving savages are not about to overrun 
the United States. Massed bodies are no substitute for technology. 

At the same time he was announcing more foreign giveaways to 
further socialize the ninety-nine countries that receive our aid 

(including Communist countries), Mr. Nixon was also raising the 
national debt limit. But his request for $2.6 billion was just the tip 
of the foreign aid iceberg. According to Congressman Otto Passman, the 
bases for backing $1 billion from the foreign aid budget are summed up 
in three telling arguments: 

-The actual over-all total of "new requests for foreign 
assistance" for the fiscal year starting July 1, 1970, is $12,133 
billion, not merely $2.2 billion. The latter is only one item in a long 
list of proposed foreign aid expenditures scattered through the 
President's full budget. 

- Approximately $20 billion "in accumulated unexpended funds 
voted by Congress in prior years" is piled up in the various government 
agencies engaged in foreign aid spending. 

- Some 50 per cent of the $375 billion national debt represents 
money borrowed by the Treasury to be disbursed abroad in grants and 
loans. Over-all cost of foreign aid from 1946 through fiscal 1970 is in 
excess of $190 billion including the interest on borrowed funds. 

"The interest on our staggering federal debt for this fiscal year 
is $15,958 billion," said Passman. "One-half of this immense amount is 
due to our foreign aid expenditures plus interest . During this 
worldwide spending spree, our gold holdings have been reduced from 
nearly $23 billion to less than $11 billion. Further, our balance-of- 
payments situation has become serious. 

"It is an old strategem of the bureaucrats," Passman declared, 
"to fragment foreign aid programs by scattering 

them throughout the budget under different titles. In that way they 
hide them in order to cover up the real scope and immense cost of 
foreign aid. It took me many hours of digging and poring to put 
together this highly revealing list. "21 

Vigorously opposing Nixon's proposed hike in foreign aid, 
Congressman H.R. Gross on June 11, 1969, declared: 

With the Federal debt at around $375 billion, requiring the 
appropriation of more than $17 billion this year just to pay the 
interest on the debt, with inflation chewing up the dollar, I am 
utterly amazed that demands should be made for another 
multi-billion dollar foreign giveaway program. 22 

Typical of the impact of the Nixon administration on Republican 
Congressmen who in the past have steadfastly fought against the 
financing of socialism at home and abroad was their reaction to the 
Nixon foreign aid program. "I am bleeding over this thing," Congressman 
E. Ross Adair (R.-Ind.) said. His record showed that he had never voted 
for foreign aid during his eighteen years in Congress. But with a 
Republican president he admitted that he was under great pressure to go 
along with the new bill. 23 

In September 1970, Nixon revealed what the "reforms" in foreign 
aid would be that he had talked about during the campaign. The idea, he 
explained, was to channel our foreign aid money through United Nations 
agencies so that the recipients would not feel compromised by living on 
our money. 24 This "reform," advocated by Liberals for years, is another 
step toward the day when the amount of foreign aid money to be spent 
will be determined by the U.N. and not by Congress. Turning over 
foreign aid to the U.N. will be a giant step toward Mr. Nixon's "world 
order . " 

One of the most scandal-ridden boondoggles in the history of the 
nation is the misnamed War on Poverty. Numerous 

investigations have shown that it is not only a cornucopia for crooks 
but, worse, has systematically been a source of funds for revolutionary 
militants. It is hard to find a major U.S. black militant, from Stokely 
Carmichael to Rap Brown to Huey Newton, who has not at some time been 
on the War on Poverty payroll. Republicans in Congress, with few 
exceptions, vigorously opposed the establishment of the War on Poverty, 
and many have called for its abolishment as various official and 
unofficial investigations have disclosed the anti-American attitudes of 
many of its employees. During his campaign, Nixon was full of 
derogatory remarks about the War on Poverty and strongly implied that 
under his "new leadership" administration this monstrosity would be 
abolished. On one occasion he declared: 

A current poverty program that should be eliminated is the Job 
Corps. This is one program that has been a failure. It sounds good, but 
it costs $10,000 a year to train a man for a job that may not even 
exist . 

But, as he has done with so many of his campaign promises, once 
Richard Nixon assumed office he reversed himself on the War on Poverty 
issue. The New York Times' super-Liberal Tom Wicker acknowledged: 

The President also has moved to extend the life of the Johnson- 
created Office of Economic Opportunity for another year, an even 
further departure from the Nixon campaign line. This appears to reflect 
a judgment - as Pat Moynihan puts it that the poverty program's "goals 
are valid and this Administration wishes to embrace them as its own 
goals. ' °25 

In a special message to Congress on February 19, 1969, the 
President asserted: "From the experience of OEO, we have learned the 
value of having in the Federal Government an agency whose special 
concern is the poor." He then called for a one-year extension of the 
Office of Economic Opportunity, 

stating that "the OEO has been a valuable fount of ideas and enthusiasm 
. . . . " On June 2, 1969, the Washington Post reported: 

President Nixon yesterday broadened his commitment to the 
Nation's war on poverty agency by asking Congress to extend its life 
for two years, instead of one year as originally intended. 

This was followed on June 13 by a Washington Post report that: 

Donald Rumsfeld [Director of O.E.O.], far from presiding over the 
liguidation of the Office of Economic Opportunity, has moved in his 
first 18 days on the job to revive it as the dominant innovative force 
on most aspects of domestic policy. 26 

A disgusted Indianapolis News commented: 

The Nixon administration covered itself with confusion this month 
when it forced through a continuation of the scandalridden "war on 
poverty" on its present footing. 

Despite the fact that Nixon campaigned against the jerry-built 
"poverty" set-up in the 1968 election, his regime lobbied strenuously 
to prevent needed changes in the program and torpedoed an amendment for 

which there appeared to be ample support in the U.S. House of 
Representatives .... 

The net result of this is that the Nixon administration has 
salvaged one of the most discredited of liberal Democratic programs 
intact in obvious contradiction to the rhetoric which brought the 
administration to office. The "mess" that the new regime was supposed 
to clean up in this area goes on as before, with no structural changes 
other than a change of personnel at the top. This is an implicit 
violation of the trust reposed in the new regime by the voting public . 

As Rep. Edith Green, D-Ore., comments, the approach favored by 
Rumsfeld "did not have a single change - not a single change in the . . 
. program in terms of administration - in terms of structure - in terms 
of all the abuses that have occurred - and in terms of what I think are 
outright violations by [the Office of 

Economic Opportunity] of congressional intent .... The only change 
in the bill was to say to the OEO, 'We will give you an additional $295 
million to spend in the way you want to spend it. ' "27 

Yes the "Conservative" Nixon administration asked for $295 
million more than the Liberal Johnson administration had been spending. 
Then, under the guise of "reforms, " parts of the War on Poverty were 
transferred to other departments where they could be hidden more easily 
in bigger budgets. 

In keeping the War on Poverty, the Nixon administration 
surrendered to blackmail. A column by Joseph Alsop of March 2, 1969, 
discussed the reason why Nixon has not abolished the Community Action 
programs under the Office Economic Opportunity. The Community Action 
programs employ about 29,000 non-professionals on a full-time basis. 
According to Alsop, a substantial majority of these people come from 
the urban ghettos, and the non-professional employees in the ghettos 
now constitute a new and powerful vested interest. Alsop then went on 
to say: 

The reason the vested interest was not tackled head on, which is 
freely admitted by the highest Nixon policymakers, was that "they would 
have burned the place down, if we'd terminated the programs just like 

The Nixon administration has also made little or no attempt to 
clean the militants out. According to Human Events: 

Human Events also has it on unimpeachable authority that the OEO 
is still funding the Blackstone Rangers gang in Chicago and is 
supporting leaders of US, the paramilitary, black racist group headed 
by California's Ron Karenga. Karenga's group is considered one of the 
most dangerous black "Mafia" groups in existence. 
While Rumsfeld was unaware of it, OEO militants distributed 
numerous copies of an inflammatory "training" manual to every OEO 
regional office in the country. Called "Trainer's Manual for Community 
Action Agency Boards," the booklet stressed that recourse to rioting is 
a legitimate means for gaining proper community action. 

That the OEO employees have not changed under Rumsfeld was 
dramatically underscored last week when 1,000 community action leaders 
from across the country gathered at a three-day conference of the 
National Association for Community Development in Maryland. 

When OEO Director Rumsfeld asked the nation's community action 
leaders to avoid "tactics of confrontation, " he was promptly denounced 
from the floor. The conferees, in fact, quickly adopted a position 
paper that accused the Nixon Administration of being the "enemy of the 
poor" and urged all Americans to join "the army of dissenters." 

In brief, the OEO does not look much better under Nixon than it 
did under Johnson. 2 8 

We could go on for pages listing the federal programs formerly 
denounced by Republicans as boondoggles, that the Nixon administration 
has expanded. The Nixonites have made no overall attempt to squeeze the 
water out of bloated government budgets. Certainly there have been some 
instances in which the President, with great hoopla and fanfare, has 
threatened to veto a particular budget request, and a couple of 
instances in which he has actually done so. But these were so much 
"show biz." Even the budgets that replaced the vetoed budgets were 
higher than the LBJ appropriations that candidate Nixon so accurately 
denounced. This type of hoax is good for one's political image, and in 
the Nixon administration, image is all-important. Under Nixon, the 
welfare state marches on and on and on, becoming an ever bigger burden 
to the taxpayers who must carry the load. As a dejected Chicago Tribune 
admitted, "The more it changes, the more it remains the same." 

The Great Socialist Revival 

One of the most startling articles ever printed in an American 
magazine appeared in the September 21, 1970 issue of New York (not to 
be confused with The New Yorker) Magazine. It is entitled "Richard 
Nixon and the Great Socialist Revival." The theme of the article is 
that Richard Nixon is a secret Marxist, working with the giant 
foundations and international bankers, mouthing platitudes in praise of 
free enterprise while guietly socializing the country through deeds. 
The art work graphically illustrates the point; it shows the famous (in 
Communist circles anyway) poster of Mao Tse-tung with his little Mao 
beanie and collarless Red Chinese uniform triumphantly waving a huge 
blood-red Communist flag - except that the face in New York Magazine is 
not Chairman Mao's, but Richard Milhous Nixon's. Subseguent pages show 
workers giving the Communist clenched-f ist revolutionary salute, and 
the final panel shows a worker giving the salute with the Federal 
Reserve building in the background. If one read the article without 
noting the name of the author, one might well conclude that someone had 
somehow spirited a manuscript out of the editorial offices of American 
Opinion in the dead of night and New York Magazine had run it just for 
fun. On closer scrutiny, however, certain features of the article give 
away the fact that its author is an Insider on the Left. As is indeed 
the case. The man behind the typewriter for this amazing literary 
revelation is none other than Harvard 


Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, the Peck's bad boy of the Insider 

Establishment . 

Before reading the article one is tempted to think that Galbraith 
may be writing satire. But a closer look discloses that he is writing 
only half in jest, and wholly in earnest. Such a tactic leaves a 
convenient back door to slip out of in case the situation gets sticky. 
This ploy was used some years ago by another ultra-Leftist Insider, 
Richard Rovere, in an article for Esguire titled "The American 
Establishment." In detailing the existence and workings of the 
Establishment, Rovere, with tongue inserted part way in cheek, gave an 
excellent description of the Council on Foreign Relations, its 
satellites, and the chief personalities involved. Rovere stated: "The 
directors of the Council on Foreign Relations make up a sort of 
Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as 
a nation." Galbraith is a member of the CFR, and the subject of his 
revealing article, Richard Nixon, has also been a member of the CFR, 
and during his 1968 Presidential campaign wrote an article for the 
official CFR organ, Foreign Affairs (which differs from its 
"underground" counterpart, Political Affairs, only in style and 
sophistication) . At last count more than one hundred members of the CFR 
had been appointed to key positions in the Nixon administration. Both 
Nixon and Galbraith, then, are members of the same ruling elite, 
composed of men from the government, foundations, big business, and 
international banking - all under the CFR umbrella. 

For Galbraith, to pronounce the President a socialist is not an 
accusation, but a compliment. He wants his own Democratic Party to guit 
pussyfooting around and proclaim its adherence to socialism. The 
Cambridge sage writes in his latest book, Who Needs The Democrats?*: ". 
. . The Demo- 

•This paperback contains seventy-one pages of text and sells for $1. 
Socialist Galbraith is apparently a filthy, greedy capitalist when it 
comes to his own royalties. 

cratic Party must henceforth use the word socialism. It describes what 
is needed . . . . " At least Galbraith is frank; most of his fellow 
socialists hide behind the euphemistic term, Liberalism. As U.S. News & 
World Report recently noted: "The "liberal' movement in America dates 
back to the rise of socialism and trade-unionism around the turn of the 
twentieth century." 

Socialists had a difficult time selling their ideology until they 
stole the honorable word "Liberalism, " whose meaning was once the 
opposite of what it is today. Today's Liberalism is derived from 
socialism, whose father is Karl Marx; and Marx made no distinction 
between socialism and Communism in his Communist Manifesto. If 
Galbraith really wanted to be brutally honest he would use the terms 
Marxism and Communism as well as socialism. Lenin believed that 
socialism would come to backward countries like Russia by revolution 
and to industrial nations like Great Britain or America by the creeping 
method, via the ballot box. Therefore, all Communists work for 
socialism. They understand what the naive and well-meaning amateur 
Liberal (as distinguished from the professional Liberal like Galbraith) 
does not - that the difference between "democratic" socialism as 
practiced in England or Sweden, and the openly totalitarian socialism 
practiced in Russia and China, is one not of degree but of time.* 

Galbraith was a founder, and has served as chairman, of the 
60, 000-member Fabian-socialist Americans for Demo- 

"Of course, virtually all American Liberals and most socialists 
consider themselves loyal Americans and have no idea that they are 
unwitting members of a world-wide conspiratorial movement that takes 
many forms. They become extremely angry when Liberalism is eguated with 
socialism, which is in turn eguated with Communism, because they are, 
in most cases, sincerely opposed to totalitarianism. America can be 
saved from plunging into the midnight morass of totalitarianism only 
when a sufficient number of sincere and honest Liberals are educated by 
knowledgeable (and compassionate) Conservatives to understand the 
nature and the interlocking structure of the World Revolutionary 
Movement, headed by its small cligue of Insiders. 

cratic Action (ADA) . He has also been affiliated with the avowedly 
socialist League for Industrial Democracy, which spawned the bomb- 
throwing Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) . Galbraith has never 
been accused of being anti-Communist. He contends of the Soviets that 
"they are basically just like us." Whom does he mean by "us"? 

Galbraith is probably best known for his book The Affluent 
Society, which propounded the theory that government and its services 
are being scandalously starved while the private consumer lives in 
luxury. His solution: Tax the latter more heavily to support the former 
more generously. 

The exploit for which Galbraith is least known is probably his 
participation in preparing a sinister Orwellian plan published as the 
"Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of 
Peace."* The jacket on the Delta edition of this opus states: 

Report From Iron Mountain [taken from the site of the first 
meeting] unveils a hitherto top-secret report of a government 
commission that was reguested to explore the conseguences of lasting 
peace on American society. The shocking results of the study, as 

revealed in this report, led the government to conceal [and 
subsequently deny] the existence of the commission - they had found 
that, among other things, peace may never be possible; that even if it 
were, it would probably be undesirable; that "defending the national 
interest" is not the real purpose of war; that war is necessary; that 
war deaths should be planned and budgeted. 

The report is a blueprint for the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" 
technique being used by the Insiders in Vietnam, which is doubtless 
destined to be used soon in other parts of the world. According to the 
Iron Mountain Boys, "social change" (read socialism) can best be 
brought about during wartime. People will accept a greater degree of 
control and 

'The report was prepared at Herman Kahn ' s (CFR) Hudson Institute, 
taxation when they come in the guise of national defense. Galbraith 
admits in the New York article: 

In the past the war power has been notoriously a cover for 
socialist experiment and, feeling that the end justifies the means, 
socialists have not hesitated, on occasion, to stretch the law. 

This strategy also allows the revolutionaries from below students, 
minorities, and "the poor" - to demand "peace" and "social justice." 

While visiting in England, Galbraith admitted that he was indeed 
one of the report's authors. The Associated Press picked up the 
admission, but few papers printed it - many undoubtedly not 
understanding how monstrous was the boast, or the confession (whichever 
it was) . In America, however, Galbraith is a leader of the "peace" 
movement and feigns sympathy with the young men who are sent to their 
deaths in wars that are not meant to be won. On the cover of the Delta 
Press edition, Galbraith (with tongue wholly inserted in cheek) 
denounces the report as something that might have emanated from the 
twisted mind of Dean Rusk (who like JKG himself is a member of the CFR, 
the father of no-win wars) . Thus, Galbraith denounces Galbraith. War is 
peace. Slavery is freedom. The incredibly devious Galbraith is also 
reported to have written a favorable review of "The Report From Iron 
Mountain" that appeared under a pseudonym. Such deceitfulness is beyond 
the comprehension of most people. But in order to be a conspirator, one 
must be a liar for no conspiracy can succeed unless its existence is 
concealed by lies. 
Galbraith began his New York article by proclaiming: 

Certainly the least predicted development under the Nixon 
Administration was this great new thrust to socialism. One encounters 
people who still aren't aware of it. Others must be rubbing their eyes, 
for certainly the portents seemed all to the 
contrary. As an opponent of socialism, Mr. Nixon seemed 
steadfast .... 

It is true that the reality of Richard Nixon is in sharp conflict 
with the image he has carefully projected for the past twenty years. 
The public's memory is notoriously short, but those who have watched 
Nixon's deeds (in contrast to his words) over the past two decades know 
that Galbraith was right. Nixon actually began moving Left well before 
he became Vice President in 1952, and by the end of Ike's second term, 
sophisticated Liberals knew he was in their camp. Richard Wilson, Chief 

of Look's Washington Bureau, acted as a transmission belt for the 
Insiders when he wrote a feature article in Look of September 3, 1957, 
titled "The Big Change in Richard Nixon." In this story, which 
contained virtually ungualified praise for the "new Nixon, " Wilson 
wrote: "He has made a distinct turn to the left. When the choice has 
been between the Republican right and the Republican left, Nixon has 
sided with the Republican left." 

The Galbraith article in New York magazine admits that the 
economic philosophies of the late lavender lecher, John Maynard Keynes, 
promote socialism. Keynes, who tried to turn the British Fabian Society 
into a sort of Roaring Twenties Gay Liberation Front, has been the 
economic patron saint of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Benito Mussolini, Adolf 
Hitler, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and last but 
not least, Richard Nixon.* That Nixon subscribes to Keynesian 
Economics, we have abundant evidence. The Wall Street Journal noted on 
December 5, 1968: 

It's clear, too, that the President-elect wants the Government 

*No student of political science, economics, or conspiracy should fail 
to read and study the Veritas Foundation's Keynes At Harvard, by 
Zygmund Dobbs . 

to use fiscal and monetary policy to urge the nation along a safe 
economic course. To that extent he accepts the "New Economics" pursued 
by the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations .... 

The Journal's Richard Janssen had written even before the election, on 
October 21: 

In fact, the Nixon camp is stressing that it's no less committed 
to the basic principle of Government-guided economic growth than the 
Johnson-Kennedy Administrations have been. Mr. Nixon has labeled 
himself a "new economist," aides note, a tag customarily attached to 
such Democratic seers as Walter W. Heller, Gardner Ackley and Arthur 
Okun, the current chairman of President Johnson's Council of Economic 
Advisers .... 

Presidential economic adviser Herbert Stein even wrote a book 
titled Conservatives Are Keynesian, Too, the theme of which was 
described by Business Week of May 3, 1969 (page 88), as follows: 

The great fiscal revolution in America . . . was not the 
exclusive product of Keynesian economists and Democratic politicians. 
Rather it was an event for which Republicans, conservatives, and 
businessmen are entitled to an almost equal share of the credit. And 
that alone should lay to rest any worry that the Nixon Administration 
will revert to antediluvian attitudes if the going gets rough in the 
war against inflation. 

Former Harvard Professor Seymour Harris, a top Keynesian and a 
member of the Fabian-socialist ADA, wrote: 

Current pronouncements by leaders of the Nixon Administration 
sound like those of the able economic advisers of 1961-68. This is not 
surprising since the new economists in the Nixon Administration, for 
the most part, have learned their economics under the same influences 
as the Kennedy- Johnson economists .... 

Harvard turned out the largest number of the new economists 
who in turn moved to Washington to work for the KennedyJohnson 
administrations. Now Nixon offers us Paul McCracken, Henry Wallich and 
Hendrik Houthakker, the first two Harvard trained, the last a Harvard 
teacher. They also mobilized John Dunlop and Gottfried Haberler, both 
distinguished economists of long standing at Harvard, to chair 
committees to investigate important problems .... 

Are there then no differences between President Nixon's economics 
and those of his predecessors? Indeed, there are; but on the 
fundamentals the objectives and means of achieving them are strikingly 
similar. It is fortunate for the country that Mr. Nixon has abandoned 
his attacks on "growthmanship" and on governmental responsibility for 
the functioning of a healthy economy. For he will need the help of 
government to maximize output and minimize instability. That is what 
the New Economics is all about .... 

It is not surprising that he embraces fiscal policy, as the 
Democrats do . z 

The GOP has been railing against Keynesian deficit spending for 
nearly four decades, but nationally syndicated columnist JR Ter Horst 
observed in the Indianapolis Star of October 30, 1968: 

Even Nixon, interestingly, has discarded the old GOP axiom of 
balancing every Federal budget every year. His emphasis now is on "the 
intelligent balancing of the economy over the business cycle" - which 
is the philosophy of the New Economics which has dominated budgetary 
policy the last eight years. 

Fabian-socialist Keynes boasted to a friend that his system would 
be the "euthanasia of capitalism" and would destroy free enterprise 
under the guise of saving it. Keynesian "New Economics" is but a 
euphemism for Fabian-socialist economics. The only honest description 
of the New Economics (socialism) is "Communist economics," since Marx, 
the father of modern socialism, as we have said, used the words 
interchangeably. The fifth plank of Marx's Communist 

Manifesto is "centralization of credit in the hands of the state . . . 
. " As a celebrated Keynesian himself, Galbraith cannot have been very 
much surprised at what he calls "the new socialism" under Nixon, even 
though the public is increasingly flabbergasted. 

Galbraith does, however, seem to have been somewhat surprised to 
see Nixon moving towards socialism in ways other than Keynesian 
monkeying with government spending to "boost" the economy. The Wizard 
of Harvard (which is the real land of Oz) proclaimed in his article: 

In an intelligently plural economy, a certain number of 
industries should be publicly owned. Elementary considerations of 
public convenience require it. For moving and housing people at 
moderate cost, private enterprise does not serve. But I had come 
reluctantly to the conclusion that socialism, even in this modest 
design, was something I would never see. Now I am being rescued by this 
new socialist upsurge promoted, of all things, by socialists not on the 
left but on the right. And they have the blessing, and conceivably much 
more, of a Republican Administration. 

Professor Galbraith contends that the "new socialism" is the 
basis of the "Nixon Game Plan, " based on the successful Fabian- 

socialist conspiracy in England. Galbraith refers to it as "the 
doctrine of the commanding heights": 

The new socialism also shows an acute sense of strategy. In the 
years after World War II in Britain, where socialism had a fair run, 
British socialists developed the doctrine of the commanding heights. 
The state would not take over the entire economy. It would aim for that 
part which was so strategic that its loss destroyed capitalist power, 
shattered its morale and so secured social control over the rest. The 
new conservative socialism in the United States has taken over the 
strategy of the commanding heights with a vengeance. 

And Mr. Nixon appears to be beginning where the British, 
according to Professor Galbraith, also began: 

. . . the first of the heights which the British socialists 
marked out for capture after World War II was the railroad system. It 
had great symbolic value. More than textiles, water transport or steel, 
this was the industry where modern large-scale capitalism began. So, 
pro tanto, it was where socialism should begin. To be astride the 
transportation system carried also the impression if not the reality of 
power . 

The railroads were similarly marked out by the new American 
socialism for its first offensive. This was concentrated on the biggest 
of the systems, indeed the biggest transportation company in the United 
States, the Penn Central. The attack was not led by the passengers and 
shippers, the two groups which had been most aggressively abused by 
private capitalism in this industry. Nor did the workers, once the big 
battalions of socialism, react. The socialist thrust against the Penn 
Central was led by the executives of the railroad - by the agents and 
instruments of the capitalists themselves. 

This is an admission that socialism is not a movement of 
downtrodden masses but a tool of the power-hungry intellectual and 
financial elite. The socialists would have us accept the theory that 
government ownership and control over the means of production of goods 
and services is the road to sharing the wealth. Socialism is not a 
share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a consolidate-and-control- 
thewealth program aimed at making serfs out of the upstart middle 
class. This explains the participation of many of the super-rich in 
socialist movements. If they were merely suffering from a guilt complex 
because of inherited wealth (which doubtless is a reason in some 
cases), the super-rich could assuage their consciences by giving away 
their mansions, airplanes, and yachts and joining the rest of us 
peasants with our $20,000 mortgages. Instead these Insiders hide (and 
compound) their wealth inside tax-free foundations and avoid taxes by 
purchasing and selling stocks through Swiss banks. 
As Dr. Galbraith notes, when the Penn Central Railroad 
faced bankruptcy, it ran (with the urging of seventy-seven banks) to 
the government, inviting the U.S. to invest $200 million in Penn 
Central as a first step. The Nixon administration welcomed it with open 
arms. This dramatic rush to socialism won the initial approval of the 
Republican administration. Everything, indeed, seemed greased and ready 
to go, says Galbraith. By this we assume that Dr. Galbraith refers to 
the fact that Penn Central had hired the legal services of Randolph 
Guthrie of Nixon's "former" law firm of Mudge, Rose, Guthrie and 
Alexander. But the move was blocked by Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of 
the House Banking and Currency Committee. Galbraith comments: 

But it seems likely that the setback is only temporary. Other 
railroads are known to want government participation in their capital 
structure. There is no chance that the Penn Central will get through 
receivership, much less escape from it, without public capital. Even if 
he feels strongly about defending private enterprise, Mr. Patman cannot 
stand up against this kind of pressure forever. 

The handwriting is on the wall. Most railroads are very shaky, 
caught between a business slow-down, labor demands, inflation, and the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, which controls rates. The chief causes 
of the railroads' problems were summarized by Professor Michael Conant, 
writing in the Wall Street Journal of September 17, 1970: 

The Federal legislation which inhibits successful management is 
of three main types. The minimum rate regulation keeps railroads from 
lowering many rates for commodities in which railroads compete with 
highway and water carriers. The effect is to increase the nation's 
investment in trucks which pollute the countryside while railroads 
could do a more efficient job of carrying most commodities for 
distances over 250 miles. 

The second group of statutes are railway labor laws, which put so 
much power in the unions that they force the employment of 
large numbers of unneeded workers. Featherbedding in the railroad 
industry is real and the political power of railway unions prevents the 
enactment of laws to foster its termination. 

The third group of statutes prevents the disinvestment in plant 
that can be operated only at a net loss. These are the laws relating to 
pooling of operations, trackage rights and abandonments. The many 
parallel railroads and thousands of branch lines were built before the 
days of the hard road, the motor truck and the airplane. The present 
great excess capacity in railroad lines and yards can only become an 
increasing source of losses as real estate taxes and costs of 
maintenance of way increase .... 

Railroad managements would like the public treasury to give them 
short-run financial aid. In light of the facts outlined above, however, 
no reasonable taxpayer can support public loans to failing railroads, 
the proposal now before the Congress. Until the three groups of Federal 
statutes are amended, such "loans" would merely be subsidies to 
inefficiency while railroad losses and bankruptcies continued to 
increase. The American taxpayers must not be so foolish as to throw 
money down this bottomless pit. 

The only real solution to the Railroads' bevy of dilemmas was 
proposed by Professor Oscar Cooley in the Anaheim Bulletin of July 20, 

The Interstate Commerce Commission should be abolished. The 
competition of substitute methods of transportation trucks, waterways, 
pipelines, airplanes - not to mention the very real competition between 
the rail companies themselves, is amply protecting the customers. 

The railroad companies should be set free to fix their own rates, 
provide such services as they choose to provide - after all, they must 
serve the public if they are to make a profit, and in every respect to 
run their own business. 

But Richard Nixon, for all his campaign talk about how government 
controls produce stagnation, has not even suggested this possibility. 
Doubtless nationalization will proceed through a series of steps 
involving subsidies and loan 

guarantees. The President did not push plans for infusing money into 
the Penn Central during the campaign, but the Wall Street Journal 
reported on September 14, 1970: "Some sources believe that large 
amounts of funds for the Penn Central will be forthcoming after the 
November elections . . . . " Now the plan can be promoted as giving a 
badly needed "boost to the economy." In the meantime a bill has passed 
Congress and been signed by the President to establish a $340 million 
federally chartered National Railroad Passenger Corporation. This bill, 
which the October 20, 1970 Wall Street Journal dubbed "semi- 
nationalization, " provides for government takeover of passenger 
service . 

Nixon's Secretary of Transportation John Volpe gave us a clue to 
the thinking of the New Leadership Team: "The only option for keeping 
service intact - the only one we could think of - is take-over by the 
Government . " 3 

And the Establishment media have indeed started to beat the bongo 
drums for a government takeover of railroads. Times magazine 
editorialized: "Washington seems to be the only power that has the 
potential, at least, of building a rational, balanced national rail 
system. " 

We must not lose sight of the fact that the sixth plank of Marx's 
Communist Manifesto calls for "centralization of the means of 
communication and transport in the hands of the state." This is exactly 
what the Insiders have in mind. They will doubtless be bailed out of 
their Penn Central investments at a handsome profit. The truth is, we 
don't know who controls the Penn Central behind the scenes (assuming 
they do still control the Penn Central as they controlled the 
Pennsylvania) . 

But now, Galbraith gets down to the real nitty-gritty in his 
article : 

Important as they are, however, the railroads . . . are not the 

ultimate goal of the new socialism. The ultimate target is Wall 
Street. This is as it should be, and here it is making its greatest 
move - one that for drama and a kind of sanguinary gall would be 
appreciated even by such a master of these arts as the young Leon 
Trotsky himself. 

The allusion to Trotsky is interesting, since Trotsky was financed by 
the Wall Street firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and the largest fund 
raiser for Nixon's 1968 campaign is reported to have been Kuhn, Loeb 
partner Lewis Strauss. Galbraith continues: 

The Wall Street objective is nothing less than the New York Stock 
Exchange itself, the very heart of American, even world capitalism, the 
Everest of the commanding heights. The opportunity arises, as ever, 
from economic crisis. A known, appreciable but undisclosed number of 
members of the Stock Exchange have been hit by falling revenues, high 
costs and the slump in the stock market and thus in the value of the 
securities they own. In consequence of this and their own inefficiency, 
their capital is impaired, the chances for repair are poor and, a 
miracle apart, they cannot make good to their customers the money and 
securities left with them for speculative use .... 

It is significant that in his article Galbraith nowhere advocated 
the elimination of all Wall Street firms. Obviously the Insider firms 
will survive the violent drops in the stock market caused by changes in 
Federal Reserve policies which they control or to which they are 
privy.* Los Angeles stock broker John Weber reports that he was told by 
a very high official in the mutual fund industry that a top Securities 
and Exchange Commission official admitted to him in 1964 that what SEC 
wanted to see within a decade was a consolidation and elimination of 
brokerage firms until only ten Wall Street firms survived. Galbraith, 
however, believes (or claims to) 

*See this author's articles, "The Bankers" and "The Federal Reserve," 
in American Opinion, March and April 1970 respectively; also available 
from American Opinion as a single combined reprint, 
that the federal government will eventually dominate all of Wall 
Street. Galbraith writes: 

The Wall Street vehicle of the new socialism is the proposed 
Securities Investor Protection Corporation [sic] , or SIPC, a fund 
created by the Stock Exchange which is to be guaranteed by the 
government to the extent of a billion dollars. This will pay off the 
customers, creditors and victims of the failed houses. Because of some 
residual opposition to socialism in Wall Street, SIPC is being billed, 
rather imaginatively, as an insurance fund. Since the firms to be 
rescued are already in deep trouble, it is the first insurance fund in 
some time to insure against accidents that have already occurred - to 
place a policy on barns which have already burned down. But this is a 
detail. As the new socialists see the prospect (one may assume), 
several of the larger stock exchange houses will eventually fail. The 
government will step in to conserve their assets against the claims it 
has paid. There will be strong pressure to minimize hardship and 
unemployment by keeping firms going. The government will oblige - the 
familiar yielding to pressure again. Presently other firms will fail 
and the government will find itself in a dominant position on the 
Street and in the Exchange. 

The result of this ploy would be that a handful of Insider firms would 

have a monopoly on Wall Street, with government capital to use to 

acguire whatever they might want. Galbraith in his article says of this 
plan : 

. . . no old-fashioned socialist ever had a better idea for 
getting a foothold on Wall Street. Their hats should be off to the new 
man. Friedrich Engels, a rich and gentlemanly businessman who loved 
fox-hunting, would; one senses, especially approve. 

The Harvard seer concludes his amazingly revealing article with a 
discussion of "Nixon Game Plan" strategy. He begins by observing that: 

Mr. Nixon is probably not a great reader of Marx, but Drs. 
Burns, Shultz and McCracken are excellent scholars who know him well 
and could have brought the President abreast . . . .* 

Galbraith says of Dr. Burns, a fellow member of the CFR "Presidium" who 
has moved from a position of adviser to Nixon to head the all-powerful 
Federal Reserve Board: 

A conspiracy theory of history is always too tempting. Dr. Arthur 
Burns as the Kerensky of this revolution, the Federal Reserve Building 
as its Smolny, tight money rather than oratory as its weapon, forces 
unleashed which, as in the case of Kerensky, no man can control - these 
thoughts are almost irresistibly attractive. 

Mixing fact with what he certainly must know to be fiction 
Galbraith describes the "Game Plan": 

. . . it is beyond denying that the crisis that aided the rush 
into socialism was engineered by the Administration. Money was 
deliberately made tight. The budget was deliberately made restrictive. 
The effect of these actions in raising interest rates and depressing 
the economy was firmly acclaimed as the Nixon Game Plan. The 
difficulties of Penn Central, Lockheed and the member firms of the NYSE 
were part of the same game - and socialism, as we have seen, is the 
name of the game. Cause and conseguence were never closer; cause could 
not have been more deliberately contrived. 

And suspicion is deepened by the sensational silence of 
conservatives . 

As Galbraith is fully aware, it was the Federal Reserve Board and 
not Nixon that moved to tighten money. It is the 

*It should be noted that Galbraith serves with Arthur Burns as a 
trustee for the Twentieth Century Fund, founded in 1919 by a wealthy 
Boston merchant, Edward A. Filene, who was affiliated with pro- 
Communist organizations. The Twentieth Century Fund has financed 
Fabian-socialist activities in the U.S. for half a century. Among the 
officials of the Fund have been such people as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 
Julius Robert Oppenheimer (self-confessed to have been at one time a 
financial contributor to the Communists), and Evans Clark (another 
friend of the Soviets) . 

Federal Reserve Board and not the administration that controls the 
money faucet. Economist Dr. Milton Friedman wrote before Nixon's 
inauguration: "Since fiscal policy does not matter, and monetary policy 
is controlled by the independent "Fed, ' the administration will not 
really have control over economic policy." 4 Burns himself stated on 
November 11, 1969: 

The responsibility of the Fed is to supervise monetary policy . . 
. .The FRB ' s autonomy was conceived for purposes of maintaining the 
integrity of the currency. I think it's guite proper that money 
authority be independent of political authority. 

Asked, in an interview reported in the May 5, 1969 issue of U. S. News 
& World Report, "Do you approve of the latest credit-tightening moves?" 
Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury, David Kennedy, told the interviewer: 
"It's not my job to approve or disapprove. It is the action of the 
Federal Reserve." 

This does not mean that the FRB is not part of the conspiracy of 
which Galbraith writes. If the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 for 
the reasons its defenders claim, i.e., to establish economic stability 
by putting an end to boom-and-bust cycles, it has been an enormous 
failure. If, on the other hand, it was created by the Insiders to 
produce inflationary booms followed by depressions or recessions in 

which the stock market falls out of bed, allowing Insiders to 
accumulate enormous profits from both boom and bust, then the "Fed" has 
been a tremendous success. Since the creation of the "Fed," which 
Liberals guaranteed would end depressions forever, we have had the 
worst depression in the history of the country, and severe recessions 
in 1920, 1936-37, 1948, 1953, 1956-57, 1960, 1966, and 1970. If you 
have advance knowledge of Federal Reserve policies you can make a 
killing whether the stock market is going up or down, and if you 
control the men who make these policies you can control the timing of 
the boom and the bust. The FRB inflated wildly (i.e. increased the 
money supply, thus bidding up prices) during LBJ's second term. During 
Nixon's first year in office the "Fed" had to stop inflating or face 
runaway inflation.* The time had come to shear the sheep. Between 
December 1968 and July 1970, the stock market lost 35 per cent of its 
value . 

Since the same Insiders who control the Federal Reserve also 
control Nixon, Galbraith's statement about tight money in his 
discussion of the Nixon Game Plan is true in essence if not from a 
technical standpoint. t And Nixon's fiscal policies (taxing and 
spending) worked hand in glove with the "Fed's" temporary halting of 
money expansion. During the campaign Nixon talked of tax-cutting: 

My administration will be one in which we are going to do 
what is necessary but with less money. That policy, directed 
toward achieving a balanced budget, will stop the rise in prices 
and lead to a reduction in taxes, s 

He specifically, promised on numerous occasions to end the 10 per cent 
surtax on income. Then, said U.S. News & World Report, "After taking 
office, President Nixon in March asked Congress to extend the surtax 
for another year." 

The President's excuse was that the surtax was needed to control 
inflation. This was absurd. Congressman H.R. Gross, 

"The term "inflation" is used commonly to mean the wage-price spiral. 
This is incorrect. It is physically impossible to have a sustained and 
general wage-price spiral unless the government is increasing the money 
supply. You can't fill a guart jar with a pint of water. 
tSince the Federal Reserve has absolute control (directly or 
indirectly) over the crucial money supply faucet, one would assume that 
appointments to the Board would attract great national attention and be 
subjected to the very closest scrutiny from Congress. But can you name 
one other member of the Board besides Burns?... Neither can anyone else 
you know. To the best of our knowledge, Congress has never rejected a 
single appointment to the Board, despite the fact that as Prof. Hans 
Sennholz tells us, the views of the appointees on monetary policy have 
ranged between inflationary and hyper-inflationary. 

on June 11, 1969, stated that the 10 per cent surtax on income, which 
extracts from the taxpayers some $12 billion a year, "hasn't worked 
because the Government has simply taken the money and spent it." 6 
Congressman John Rarick added: 

There is something patently asinine about the theory that it is 
inflationary for the man who earned the dollar to spend it on his 
family - but that it is not inflationary for the Government to take the 
dollar away from him and give it to someone else to spend. 

In fact, it is less inflationary to let the man who has earned the 
money keep it, because he will save at least a part of it, whereas the 
government will spend every last penny and more. Taxes further feed the 
wage-price spiral, because they are a cost of production and must be 
added on to the price of a product at every level. Therefore, the 
selling price of the product is increased by all of the additional 
taxes on its ingredients. The Indianapolis Star editorialized on July 
13, 1969: 

Last year the House, approved the tax surcharges by demanding a 
$6 billion cut in expenditures by the government and a cut of 240,000 
employees from the payroll. There was no cut in spending - it 
increased. There was no cut in the payroll. It increased. The taxpayers 
were double-crossed. 

The President, however, was adamant. He made the surtax vote a loyalty 
test and threatened conscience-stricken Congressmen with cuts in 
federal spending in their home districts. Washington correspondent Paul 
Scott reported in the Yakima Eagle of July 3, 1969: 

An estimated forty Republicans dropped their opposition to the 
controversial tax proposal after the President laid down his loyalty 
gauntlet during his weekly White House conference with GOP House 
Leaders . 

In a half-hour table-pounding session, the President told the GOP 
leaders that the surtax must be extended or "my whole inflation control 
program could go down the drain." 

"Republican members of Congress, " the President told the leaders, 
"should be made to understand that I regard their vote on the tax bill 
as a party loyalty test." 

The President stressed that "I will be watching the vote closely 
and future administration actions to help members will be guided by the 
way they vote . " 

Scott's report was confirmed by the vote, as described in 

Newsweek of July 14, 1969: 

As the hour of reckoning neared, not all the Administration's 
minions were being so discreet. Rep. William L. Scott, a Virginia 
Republican, complained angrily that a GOP colleague had warned him that 
his district would lose a long-scheduled dam if he didn't vote aye on 
the surtax; later, he shouted his no "a little louder than normal." 

But the liberals were not to be appeased; they stood their ground 
in the kind of solid front they have rarely been able to forge. After 
the second call of the roll, the nays had it, 201-194. Then the 
Administration began committing its surprise reserves conservative 
Republicans who had promised their votes only if absolutely necessary. 
Behind the House rail, a small knot of congressmen huddled together 
drawing straws. Short straw men trudged disconsolately down to the well 
to switch sides or withdraw their nays. The final tally: 210 ayes, 205 
nays. Only 56 Democrats, most of them tied to the leadership, joined 
the winning combination. 

The President's next gambit in his socialist conspiracy was the 
repeal of the 7 per cent tax credit for capital investment. Economist 
Henry Hazlitt commented in the February 1970 issue of Battle Line: 

Even more ill-advised [than continuing the surtax] was Mr. 
Nixon's call for repeal of the 7 per cent corporation investment tax 
credit. This was done for two reasons: to raise more revenue, 
and to reduce or remove the supposed "inflationary impact" of 
investment in new plant and equipment. The effect is to increase the 
tax burden still further on the corporations - precisely on the key 
productive element on which the whole nation's income and economic 
growth depend. The anti-inflationary argument is a complete fallacy. It 
is only government deficits and consequent money creation that cause 
inflation. The repeal of the tax credit merely means that a larger 
percentage of private spending will go into current luxury consumption 
and a smaller percentage into improving the competitiveness, efficiency 
and productivity of America's industrial plant. 

A disillusioned Pierre Rinfret, who had been a Nixon economic 
advisor during the campaign, contended that "you lick inflation by 
increasing capacity and not by holding it back." Rinfret claimed the 
tax credit repeal "has destroyed the only real , hope for resolving 
inflation". 7 But this obviously, was the whole "Game Plan" idea - to 
restrict money for the private sector, not for the government. Penn 
Central, Lockheed, and hundreds of other American corporations were put 
in a financial vise just as Galbraith indicates. The third trick-or- 
treat scheme the President pulled from his Machiavellian bag of tricks 
was the deceitful "tax reform." "Reform" is so much kinder a word than 
"raise." The National Taxpayers Union pointed out: 

Recently Congress passed new tax legislation. Reform legislation 
some call it - but it actually raised taxes by 3 billion dollars. 

Senator John Williams, one of the most respected members of the 
Senate, said: 

"The 'tax reform' bill is a hodgepodge of what seems on the 
surface to be politically "popular' but in reality could be repudiated 
in the next election if the voters are given the real truth about the 
causes of higher and higher prices and the curtailment of the 
purchasing power of the dollar." 

The spending policies of the master Machiavellian in the White 
House have been anything but restrictive except by the 
standard of a crazed Keynesian like Galbraith. The reckless deficit 
spending of the Johnson years had resulted in huge increases in the 
money supply, which bid up wages and prices. During his campaign for 
the Presidency, Mr. Nixon made much of this fiscal irresponsibility. In 
his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention on August 8, 1968, 
Candidate Nixon said: "It is time to quit pouring billions of dollars 
into programs that have failed. We are on the wrong road - it is time 
to take a new road . . . . " Later, in a position paper on the economy, 
the candidate stated: "In less than five years the Johnson-Humphrey 
Administration has squandered the inheritance of a decade's solvency . 
. . ."$ He also proclaimed: "The entire budget needs exhaustive review 
. . . . Some programs... must accept less than maximum funding; non- 
essentials . . . must await easier times; every major program . . . 
must be scoured for economies. "9 Again, in his position paper, 
Candidate Nixon blasted the profligacy of the Democrats: 

. . . for five years this Administration has refused to keep 
federal spending within federal means. 

The total deficit run up in the budgets of the JohnsonHumphrey 
years will amount to more than $55 billion. This massive deficit has 
wracked and dislocated the economy .... 

There is nothing the matter with the engine of free enterprise 
that cannot be corrected by placing a prudent and sober engineer at the 
throttle . 

The old politics of spend and elect have not only worked an 
injustice on the American people, they have denied America much of its 
flexibility in dealing with onrushing change .... 

Over and over again the campaigning Nixon called for LBJ to slash 
the federal budget, as when he claimed that every day President Johnson 
put off cutting the budget "places in greater jeopardy the entire 
international monetary structure." '° Broadcasting over CBS radio on 
April 25, 1968, Mr. 

Nixon claimed that "only by cutting the federal budget can we avert an 
economic disaster . . . . " ' 1 In Dallas on October 11, 1968, he 
declared that "America cannot afford four years of Hubert Humphrey in 
the White House, " because Humphrey had pushed for programs which would 
have caused "a spending spree that would have bankrupted this nation." 

After the election, all of the laudable rhetoric and soulful 
promises were conveniently tossed into the memory hole. The fiscal 
mismanagement of which candidate Nixon had spoken so articulately was 
truly monumental. LBJ's last budget of $183.7 billion represented an 
increase of 8 8 per cent during the Kennedy- Johnson years. LBJ boasted 
as he prepared to leave office: 

Outlays for major social programs will have risen by $37.4 
billion, more than doubling since 1964. This is twice the rate of 
increase of outlays for any other category of Government programs. 13 

According to columnist Charles Bartlett, JFK and LBJ had expanded the 
number of the government's domestic spending programs from 40 to 473. 
Most Republicans had resisted every one of the 433 added socialistic 
programs. "Reckless spending," shouted Republican Congressmen; 
"dangerous fiscal madness," echoed Republican Senators. During the 
waning days of 1968, LBJ prepared a well-padded fiscal 1970 budget to 
be handed to Nixon. In its January 25, 1969 issue, an angry Human 
Events lamented: 

To make things more difficult for Nixon on the domestic front, 
LBJ has tried to spread the myth that Nixon somehow has a moral 
commitment to carry out the programs of the "Great Society." 

As a gesture of bad will, Johnson whipped up a $195 . 3-billion 
"exciting" budget for fiscal 1970, with spectacular increases 
called for in such things as model cities, housing, foreign aid and the 
almost totally discredited anti-poverty programs .... 

Charles Zwick, LBJ's Budget Director, said of the budget prepared for 
Nixon: "We've tried to keep the momentum in key social programs." The 
Wall Street Journal of January 16, 1969, described Mr. Johnson's 
budgetary beguest to Mr. Nixon: 

Altogether, Mr. Johnson's budget slates an $11.6 billion rise in 
outlays, more than twice as large as the $4.8 billion increase that's 

expected to bring the current year's spending total to $183.7 billion. 
The major changes reflect his own priorities, White House aides say. 

LBJ's priorities became Mr. Nixon's priorities. Nixon originally 
cut the budget to $192.9 billion, which was still $8.1 billion more 
than the budget for fiscal 1969, $14 billion more than Johnson spent in 
fiscal 1968, $34.5 billion more than he spent in 1967, $58.2 billion 
more than he spent in 1966, and over $100 billion more than the 
Eisenhower administration had spent in 1960. '4 

The $ 8 billion increase (which by the end of the year was closer 
to $15 billion) was touted as "budget cutting, " on the basis that it 
was slightly less than what LBJ had proposed. (And LBJ could have 
proposed anything he wished, since he was leaving office.) In the end 
Nixon's budget turned out to be bigger than LBJ's proposals. Now, with 
the frugal Republicans controlling the White House, last year's 
profligate expenditures became this year's bare-bones budget. It all 
depends on whose gang of socialists is doing the spending. The 
Indianapolis News on January 17, 1969, said that references to the 
budget as tight 

. . . would no doubt bring tears of laughter to the eyes of 
American taxpayers if they were not already shedding tears of pain. 

In point of fact, the budget is a monument to waste and to the 
spending psychosis which has hit Americans with high and rising taxes 
and inflicted on them a spiral of increasing prices that keeps everyone 
running at top speed to stay where he is. 

This budget should not only be cut, it should be chopped to the 

For all the oratorical bunkum during the campaign about cutting 
spending, RMN and his advisors never intended to roll back the Great 
Society programs that were causing the problems. Richard Janssen wrote 
in the Wall Street Journal on October 21, 1968: 

Progress toward budget balance could be much faster if Mr. Nixon 
would rapidly dismantle many Great Society spending programs, but his 
advisers vow this won't happen. "There's no concept of undoing anything 
- it's part of the fabric and leave it be," Mr. [Pierre] Rinfret 
stresses .... 

In fact, the GOP could hardly wait to expand the Great Society. 
On July 16, 1969, the Wall Street Journal's Alan Otten revealed: 

Only Vietnam-induced budget pressures seem to be deterring the 
Nixon Administration from proposing still larger Social Security 
benefits, far more spending on education and health, a far more 
sweeping war against hunger. Even the most conservative approach now 
being considered at the White House for new welfare legislation 
represents a major expansion of existing Government programs .... 

And super-Liberal columnist Clayton Fritchey, a former Democratic 
Party official, gasped in the September 1, 1969 Washington Star: 

Despite talk and pledges of economizing, budget-cutting, and 
curtailing the federal government, the Nixon administration is, in 
fact, headed for the greatest spending spree in the history of our 
country. The planned expenditures are on such a vast and 

unprecedented scale that nobody, including the Budget Bureau, 

can presently make a reliable estimate of what they will add up to 

before President Nixon completes his term in 1973. 

It's the Great Society (a slogan borrowed from the title of a book by 
English Fabian-socialist Graham Wallas) in elephant's clothing. 

Keep in mind that these gigantic increases are coming from an 
enormous base in which per capita taxation is already $975 per annum. 
15 The average working man labors two hours and forty-three minutes a 
day all year just to pay direct and hidden taxes. 16 

The President was not going overboard to set an example. One of 
his first acts was to accept a $100,000 pay increase, doubling his 
salary. Congressman H.R. Gross observed: "I don't see how we can 
increase the President's salary by 100 per cent and claim to be setting 
a goal of austerity and frugality . . . ."17 The President was not in 
dire need of money. In addition to a $50,000 tax-exempt expense 
account, the President already received operating expenses for White 
House entertainment, the cost of his plane, travel expenses, and so 
forth from a special contingency fund. And at the same time Congressman 
Robert Taft told his fellow legislators: "Until we move toward a tax 
reduction and a truly balanced budget, we shouldn't even talk of 
congressional pay increases." But the President did not veto either the 
generous raises Congress voted for itself or his own pay increase. 

The Wall Street Journal on March 10, 1970, revealed that spending 
by the White House had doubled from $70 million under LBJ - never known 
as Mr. Frugal - to $140 million under RMN. According to the 
Indianapolis Star of April 29 the same year: 

Seasoned observers believe that Mr. Nixon has the most 

expensive White House staff arrangement in history. 
In the new budget presentation, the President's traveling 
expenses are up 87 per cent, travel and transportation of staff is 
triple this year's, communications and utilities are up 43 per cent, 
printing and reproduction has more than doubled and supplies and 
materials are almost double. 

The total number of permanent positions on the White House staff 
listed for the new fiscal year is 548. The estimate for this year was 
250 - the same number that served the last six months of President 
Johnson's term and the first six of President Nixon's. 

The Budget . . . does not account for a tripling of the National 
Security Council budget, pay for service personnel who tend the 
grounds, military assistants, presidential aircraft, including 
helicopters; the biggest part of the communications operation, the 
White House police and Secret Service staff, Coast Guard patrols off 
the vacation White Houses, General Services Administration 
housekeeping, and printing done by other departments. 

Congressman Sam Gibbons ticked off some of the President's more 
lavish expenditures: 

The people may begin to wonder why he did not say "No" to an 
$830,000 expenditure of tax money to plush up his airplane, already the 
plushest plane in the world. The people may also wonder why he did not 
say "No" to the construction of a $350,000 helicopter pad on his Key 
Biscayne property. 

They may wonder why he did not say "No" to the cost of the 
taxpayers footing the bill for a $60,000 windscreen around his swimming 

pool at the San Clemente retreat. They may wonder why he did not say 
"No" to the expenditure of an admitted $250,000 for extra facilities 
and another $100,000 annually just to maintain them at San Clemente. 

They may wonder why he did not say "No" to the $l'h million spent 
on plush White House offices for the largest Presidential staff in 
history, and "No" to thousands of dollars for silly gilded uniforms for 
White House guards. They may wonder why he did not say "No" to the 
additional $4 million for that staff, many of whom devote time almost 
solely to partisan political activities in behalf of Republican 
candidates . 

When they look at the life style of this so-called economyminded 
administration, the people will not be surprised at a 

Cabinet member who redecorated his office at a cost of $40,000 to the 
taxpayers - including an $1,800 desk and carpeting priced at more than 
$56 per sguare yard. 

The people cannot be fooled forever. They know who the "big 
spenders" really are. 18 

Congressman Arnold Olson mentioned the pay increase for the White 
House staff, up from $3.9 million to $8.5 million, and the $350,000 of 
government money spent on the Western White House, plus the $100,000 a 
year in operating costs. Olson commented: 

At a time of combined inflation and recession, when the President 
talks about combating high costs in Government; one wonders about the 
frugality of maintaining three White Houses - in Washington, San 
Clemente, and Key Biscayne, not to mention Camp David. What of the 
tremendous cost of communications to link them all? 

Certainly no one begrudges a busy President a rest retreat and 
our President deserves the finest facilities. But . . . if he wants to 
project the frugal image for political reasons - for that is the reason 
- then let him look to the same frugality in his own office. 

"Inflation fighter" Nixon also asked for $ 1. 1 million to 
operate the residence portion of the White House - an increase of 
$182,000 over the reguirements of spendthrift LBJ. He spent $574,000 to 
turn the swimming pool at the White House into a press room. 19 And he 
has turned out to be the most lavish party thrower since Perle Mesta. 
According to U.S. News & World Report: 

The Nixons have been entertaining guests at the rate of 45,000 
per year . 

According to White House aides, that is about 10 times as many 
guests as the Dwight Eisenhowers entertained in a year, and "many times 
more" than the John Kennedys entertained. It eclipses even the 26,000- 
guests-per-year pace set by the gregarious Lyndon Johnsons. 2° 

The President was forced to ask that an extra $119,000 be added 
to the White House entertainment budget out of his stringent, bare- 
bones, austere, economy budget. 

At first Nixon claimed that his budget would produce a $5.8 
billion surplus that would "speak louder than any words" of his 
determination to fight inflation, and said: 

. . . we believe we have made a necessary and significant 
beginning toward bringing the Federal budget under a closer 
Presidential control [and] brought to an end the era of the chronic 
budget deficit .... 21 

As expenditures rose and revenues shrank (due to the recession 
that diminished the government's tax take), the $5.8 billion surplus 
soon became a token surplus of $1.4 billion, which was nevertheless 
highly praiseworthy, according to the administration. By the end of the 
fiscal year the surplus had turned into a $2.9 billion deficit. 
According to UPI on July 29, 1970: 

George P. Shultz, the director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, said this was a good sign because it showed that the economy 
was stabilized and poised for an upward thrust. 

"Actions speak louder than words," Nixon had said in projecting his 
surplus. With the pink elephants, surpluses are fine but deficits are 
even better. 

Mr. Nixon's 1971 budget, the first one over which he had total 
control, was an expansion of the 1970 budget. Mr. Nixon proposed a 
$200.8 billion budget with a projected $1.3 billion surplus. The budget 
was hailed by Liberals because, as the President remarked, for the 
first time in twenty years: 

. . . the federal government is spending more on human resource 
programs than on national defense. This year we are spending $1.7 
billion less on defense than we were a year ago; in 

the coming year we plan to spend $5.2 billion less. This is more than a 
redirection of resources; this is an historic reordering of our 
national priorities . 22 

However, former Nixon adviser Dr. Roger Freeman was aghast: 

Since that time (that is, between 1953 and fiscal year 1971 as 
proposed by the President), defense expenditures increased 49 per cent 
- approximately equal to the simultaneous rate of price rise. Spending 
for health, education, welfare and labor increased 944 per cent .... 

More than half of the $129-billion increase in federal 
expenditures between 1953 and 1971 was applied to social purposes, less 
than one-fifth to defense. Defense meanwhile shrank from 64 per cent of 
the federal budget to 36 per cent, from 13.6 per cent of gross national 
product to about 7.2 per cent. 

In other words, the share of federal revenues and of the gross 
national product allocated to national defense has been cut almost in 
half since 1953. Most of the huge savings were applied to social 
purposes, with education one of the main gainers. 23 

While Mr. Nixon is "reordering our national priorities," the 
Communists grow increasingly hostile and expand their strategic 
armaments. "More for life than war," gloated the Washington Post's 
Murray Seeger. To the Liberals and Mr. Nixon, our national defense, the 
legitimate field of the federal government, is not a "human need." 
While restricting military spending and expanding most Great Society 
programs, the President introduced, according to the February 1970 
Battle Line, "no less than seven major areas of new spending which will 
cost $3 billion more the first year and perhaps $18 billion annually as 
quickly as four years from now." The stressing of welfare spending over 
defense was a far cry from campaign days. The New York Times of May 15, 
1966, stated: 

Mr. Nixon called for heavy cuts in non-military spending at 
home and a substantial cut in foreign aid except for that directly 
related to the military or such things as the famine in India." 

The highly respected Washington correspondent emeritus of the 
Chicago Tribune, Walter Trohan, wrote of the Nixon program on October 
29, 1970: 

. . . many Republicans have betrayed "conservatism" and have been 
as socialistic as many Democrats, if not more so. Betrayal of 
conservatism has been something of a fashion for 38 years. 

Some weeks ago, President Nixon assailed Congress for its failure 
to pass his legislative program. The curious part of his criticism was 
that the program was hardly "conservative, " but one which any recent 
Democratic President might have offered. 

After introducing a $200.8 billion budget, the President, as 
Republican Battle Line put it, threw "caution to the wind." Added 
expense came in the form of postal pay increases, veterans' benefits, 
construction loans, and government employee pay increases, and in a 
host of other areas. It now appears that spending for the year will be 
around $210 billion instead of $200.8 billion. 

Yet through all this Nixon has managed to keep a public image as 
Mr. Scrooge, the miserly, penny-pinching budget slasher. During the 
1970 midterm election campaign, economy in government was the number 
two theme of the Republicans behind "law and order." Some of the 
President's rhetoric warmed the hearts of Conservatives, as when he 
proclaimed: "No Federal program is above scrutiny." 24 Later he stated, 
"Personal freedom will be increased when there is more economy in 
government and less government in the economy." 25 But Human Events 
noted on January 31, 1970, following one of Mr. Nixon's economy 
speeches : 

But this conservative rhetoric was marred by the harsh fact that 
the President then proceeded to push for, or propose, 
expensive programs that would further propel the federal government 
into the very debt he had just deplored. 

Even if we could finally be convinced that gargantuan government 
programs were necessary to eliminate certain evils that plague the 
country, we would expect a Republican President to simultaneously call 
for the elimination of dozens of other programs that have outlived 
their usefulness .... We are still waiting for the day when the 
President wages as vigorous a fight to eradicate billions of dollars in 
entrenched programs as he does to put new programs on the books. 

The Nixon technique is to substantially increase a budget and 
then send it to Congress, where the Democrats up the bid even further. 
Next the President denounces the Democrats as "big spenders" 
threatening "the future of the American economy." Occasionally the 
President even vetoes an appropriation, as described in the 
Indianapolis Star of May 26, 1970: 

The failure of Mr. Nixon's "strict controls" is shown by the 
$19.7 billion bill appropriating funds for the Labor and Health, 
Education and Welfare departments for fiscal 1970 which he vetoed as 
inflationary last January. In his veto message, the President said 
bravely: "These increases (in the bill) are excessive in a period of 

serious inflationary pressures. We must draw the line and stick to it 
if we are to stabilize the economy." 

What happened? Congress nudged the bill down to $19.4 billion, 
whereupon the President promptly signed it. Where were the strict 
controls? Where was the drawing of the line and the sticking to it? 
Could it be said that any real effort was made to cut expenses 
significantly? Obviously not. 

But this subterfuge allows Mr. Nixon to constantly increase 
spending and still project the image of a budgetcutting inflation 
fighter. No matter how much Mr. Nixon increases the budget, he knows 
that the Liberal Democrats, compulsive spenders of taxpayers' money 
that they are, will always hike the ante, so the ploy always works. 

In February Mr. Nixon said: "I have pledged to the American 
people a balanced budget." 26 But by October black had become white. 
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 13: 

The new Nixon has bought the "new economics" - or at least the 
part that condones budgetary red ink at times like now. 

In a fundamental break from his old stance on fiscal 
responsibility, the President has squarely committed himself to a 
theory that holds a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit is perfectly 
proper to bolster today's, wobbly economy. 

On November 17, 1970, House Ways and Means Committee chairman 
Wilbur Mills announced that unless spending was suddenly curtailed 
drastically, Mr. Nixon's 1971 budget, which started out projecting a 
$1.3 billion surplus, was actually going to run an astounding $24 
billion in the red almost as much as LBJ's fantastic $25 billion 
deficit for 1968, which triggered our current wage-price spiral. Mills 
also declared that the deficits of the 1960 's are the root cause of the 
inflationary problems of the 1970' s. 

Few Americans are aware that the deficits are understated. UPI, 
reporting a statement by Rep. George Mahon, chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee, said: 

Mahon, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the 
fact is that budgets for the current year and the previous year, also 
pictured as "in the black," ran in the red. The total added deficit for 
the three-year period, Mahon said, runs about $19.9 billion. 

Mahon said the apparent small surplus in Nixon's budget for 
fiscal 1971 [now a huge deficit] and that for the two previous years 
results from a new accounting system under which income and 
expenditures by government trust funds, such as Social Security, are 
lumped together with other government revenue. 

In recent years, the trust funds have run substantial surpluses 
that were borrowed by other government funds and included in the 
national debt . 

During 1968, LBJ's last year in office, the debt was $365 
billion, up from $293 billion in 1967, Nixon had to ask Congress to 
raise this, first to $377 billion, and later, in May 1970, to an 
astonishing $395 billion. That is an $18 billion raise during a period 
of allegedly balanced budgets! By the time you read this the rise will 
be significantly higher. Over $17 billion per year is required just to 
service the debt; this amounts to more than one million dollars an 
hour. The annual interest on the debt is now the third largest item in 
the budget. No wonder Nixon's international banking friends like 

deficit spending: much of the interest is payable to them. Within a 
week after Congress voted to double Mr. Nixon's salary, he had to ask 
for the first debt ceiling hike. But he included a gimmick to make it 
look as if he were actually lowering the debt. This was described in 
the Wall Street Journal of February 25, 1969: 

In a special message signed before his departure for Europe, Mr. 
Nixon asked that the ceiling be reduced to $300 billion from $365 
billion but that Congress simultaneously exclude from the ceiling's 
coverage more than $80 billion of Federal securities held by Federal 
trust funds for Social Security and other purposes. 

Thus, only securities that the Federal Government sells to the 
public would be covered, a change that Mr. Nixon said would make the 
ceiling "conform fully" to the unified budget format that's currently 
in its second year. The unified system shows a deficit only when the 
overall U.S. establishment (including trust funds) is paying out more 
to the public than it's collecting in taxes. 

Congressman H.R. Gross denounced this as "more financial 
gimmickry of the Lyndon Johnson variety, " and Congress refused to allow 
the President to get away with it. Consequently, following the 1970 
midterm elections, Mr. Nixon had to face a national debt of $395 
billion with an impending deficit of $24 billion. 
And it looks as if this will be small potatoes compared to 
what is in store for coming years. A 5.6 per cent unemployment rate 
hurt the Republicans badly in the 1970 elections. In an article titled 
"Nixon Signals for Left Turn, " Peter Lisagor announced in the Chicago 
Daily News of November 11, 1970: 

Administration officials have indicated that the White House 
likely will follow its drive for a liberal welfare-reform measure with 
new "strategies" in the field of health and education of a progressive 
nature . 

They also point to a tentative administration acceptance of a 
full-employment policy, which in the present state of the economy means 
deficit financing, a hallmark of the liberal approach in a situation of 
rising joblessness. 

With these goals in mind, the political railbirds conclude that 
the President's recent meetings with conservative columnists at the 
White House and leaders of New York's Conservative Party at his Florida 
retreat reflected his desire to disarm or immobilize potential critics 
on the right as he tilts toward the left. 

Nixon's strategy of moving Left is borne out by his budget for 
fiscal 1972. According to Time of November 16, 1970: 

Aides say that he will send to Congress a fiscal 1972 budget with 
a planned deficit - amount uncertain - to follow the unplanned deficit 
of about $15 billion that the Government is likely to run this fiscal 
year .... 

Administration officials are bandying about ideas for making the 
deficit look smaller than they expect it really to be ... . 

. . . the President has begun to distract attention from the 
forthcoming deficit by stressing an idea known as the " f unemployment 
budget." This is a theoretical measure that, instead of calculating 
actual Government income, figures how much the U.S. would have taken in 
if there were full employment. Thus, a deficit under ordinary 

accounting might well turn out to be a surplus in the full-employment 
budget. Example: In this fiscal year, the Government stands to spend 
about $210 billion and collect roughly $195 billion, thus running a 
deficit of $15 billion or so. But under full-employment accounting, the 
U.S. would show a surplus - because it would have taken in well over 
$210 billion if the optimum number of people had jobs. 

The October 13, 1970 issue of the Wall Street Journal said of the 
"full-employment" budget: 

. . . the concept is comforting to the Nixon regime. "After 
blasting the Democrats, it is pretty hard to turn around and convince 
people that our deficits are good ones," confesses a Republican 
strategist. But the full-employment approach, he contends, helps show 
that "in fact, there's a world of difference." 

This is as if you felt that you could have earned $20,000 this 

year, but you only earned $15,000, so you go out and borrow $5,000 in 

order to keep up a $20,000 style of living. Time of November 16, 1970, 
defended this LSD-trip type of economics: 

While this fiddling with figures may seem like another bit of 
political gimmickry, it is economically sound. The fullemployment 
budget is a fairly reliable gauge for determining whether the amount of 
Government spending is restraining or stimulating the economy. To 
stimulate the current slack economy, a fairly large full-employment 
deficit is called for. 

This is the very type of hocus-pocus Nixon and the Republicans 
used to scream about - and with good cause. The Wall Street Journal 
reported on October 13, 1970: 

Although President Nixon doesn't use the "full-employment budget" 
term, this is what he means, aides explain, when he says that his 
"basic guideline" for the budget is that, except in emergencies, 
"expenditures must never be allowed to outrun the revenues that the tax 
system would produce at reasonably full employment." In recent days 
this has clearly become the party line, popping up in every speech by 
high economic officials, including David Kennedy and Paul McCracken. 

This is Tricky-Dickmanship at its best - or worst! According to Time of 
November 16: 

The key figure in Nixon's current discussions of full- 
employment budgeting is close to $230 billion. This is what present tax 
rates probably would bring in during fiscal 1972 at full employment. 
Nixon's dilemma is whether to hold federal spending to about that level 
or let outlays go still higher. So far, his aides have been passing 
word to department heads that spending is to be held to $225 billion. 
That strategy would allow Nixon to claim, correctly, that a planned 
deficit in the official budget would not be inflationary. But it would 
hold out little hope of lifting the economy toward full employment by 

Nixon thus will be sorely tempted to shift policy and give an 
extra boost to production, profits and jobs by allowing Government 
spending to rise still higher. Some Administration officials think that 
such a course would risk starting again the price spiral that the U.S. 

has only begun to curb, but they are frankly afraid that the boss will 
do it ... . 

The President has concluded that elections are lost on 
unemployment and recession, not inflation. The June 22, 1970 U.S. News 
& World Report quoted an unnamed aide to the President as saying: 

"Mr. Nixon told me that no major party ever lost an election on 
inflation, but they have on recession. If he has anything to say, 
everything will be done to see there is no recession." 

Nixon hopes to postpone much of the inflation until after the 1972 
elections. There is a time-lapse factor between the time the government 
injects the deficit-spending dollars into the economy and the time it 
takes for the new money to percolate through the economy, bidding up 
wages and prices. In the late '60's the Democrats benefited from the 
spending and left most of the problems to the Republicans. The 
Democrats enjoyed the drunken binge and the Republicans got the 
hangover. Now, reported Time in mid-November 1970: 

Nixon and his advisers, says one Administration economist, 
"discovered that inflation started slowing down after the econo- 
my slowed down. Now they may do the reverse: speed up the 
economy and let the inflation come afterward - after the 1972 
elections . " 

So we have come full circle from the beginning of the Johnson 
inflation, through a half-hearted attempt at deflation with the 
consequences described by Galbraith, and back to Johnsonian 
"stimulation." We are going to try the hair of the dog that bit us as a 
cure. If boom-and-bust policies are good enough for the Fabian- 
socialist Democrats, they are good enough for the Fabian-socialist 
Republicans. As Galbraith says, Nixon has a Game Plan and the "name of 
the game is socialism." LBJ may turn out to have been a piker. LBJ's 
1967 budget was $158 billion - and it was roundly denounced by the 
Republicans; Nixon's 1972 budget may run $230 billion - an increase of 
$72 billion in five years. And LBJ's deficits, once considered 
enormous, may be dwarfed by Nixon's. 

Before the 1968 election Mr. Nh;.on called inflation "the 
cruelest tax of all." He added: ". . .it quietly picks your pocket, 
steals your savings, robs your paycheck. To check inflation the 
government must cut down on unnecessary federal spending . . . ."27 

In 1969 alone, inflation robbed Americans of $60 billion of their 
savings in banks and life insurance, as the cost of living went up an 
official 6.1 per cent during Mr. Nixon's first year in office. In March 
1970, the President told a news conference that his administration's 
economic policies had "taken the fire out of inflation" and would steer 
the nation clear of it. 28 Actually, the administration has killed 
prosperity, but not inflation. Production is down, unemployment is up - 
but prices are again rising: officially, the rate was 6 per cent during 
1970. (The official rate is loaded; the true rate is estimated at 10 
per cent by many economists.) This means that Americans have paid an 
additional hidden tax of $120 billion in the past two years. 

Now, in order to cure the non-existent recession, the 
administration is prepared to hyperinf late . And the Federal Reserve 
Board is obviously willing to go along with the Game Plan. Board 
Chairman Arthur Burns, "the Kerensky of this revolution," has promised 

that "there will be enough money and credit to meet future needs, and 
that the orderly expansion of the economy will not be endangered by a 
lack of liquidity." He has also said he is willing to increase the 
money supply at a "temporarily excessive speed." In layman's language 
this means, "The printing presses are oiled and ready to roll." (At 
swank Washington soirdes Nixon men have been seen dancing the Samba to 
the strains of "Brazil.") Space-Time-Forecasting said of this venture: 

It's an illusion that government can make or break prosperity at 
will by manipulating money supply. It's tragic that men surrounding 
recent administrations hold this belief, in spite of historical 
evidence that it's never been successful - very much the contrary . . . 
. . It is obvious from statements made in the past that Nixon knows 
better. * 

Nixon inflation will produce the same chaos as Johnson inflation. 
Inflation is harmful to an economy under any circumstances. If Mr. 
Nixon had really wanted to cure the Johnson inflation and return to 
stability, he would have taken a course exactly opposite to the one he 
has taken. The best way to avoid the effects of inflation is to 
increase productivity and produce your way out of it. This means 
drastically cut government spending, balanced budgets, and then tax 
cuts to give businessmen an incentive to produce, and consumers money 
with which to buy their products and 

*Nixon stated in the October 1968 issue of Fortune magazine: "The 
accelerated rise in prices in recent years has resulted primarily from 
an excessively expanding money supply that in turn had been fed by the 
monetization of federal government deficits. The way to stop the 
inflation is to reverse the irresponsible fiscal policies which produce 

it " 

services. Instead, Mr. Nixon has instituted the economics of scarcity 
(as noted by Galbraith) , expanding the welfare state with a consequent 
boost in government spending and increased taxes. This is the Game 
Plan, and as Galbraith observes, "the name of the game is socialism." 
In 1965, Nixon declared: 

This administration [LBJ's] has adopted a completely 
contradictory policy in dealing with the threat of inflation. It has 
tried to replace the market law of supply and demand with Johnson's law 
of comply and expand - business complies and government expands. 

A policy that requires business to slam on the price brakes while 
government steps on its spending accelerator will in the end only 
produce a collision - and the family budget will be the casualty. 29 

In order to postpone the worst of the increases in the cost of 
living until after the '72 election, the administration will have to 
resort to "jawboning," "guidelines," and plain old-fashioned arm 
twisting. Ultimately, wage and price controls will be instituted, as 
the Socialist Game Plan nears completion, but if possible this will be 
delayed until after the '72 election. If the cost of living gets 
completely out of hand, controls may have to be instituted even before 
the elections. The President has the power to do this, as is made clear 
in the August 12, 1970 newsletter of Congressman John G. Schmitz: 

On the last day of July, Congress held an unusual Friday session 
to spend several hours in a most peculiar debate on a bill establishing 

new cost accounting standards for defense contracting, onto which had 
been tacked a "rider" empowering the President, by executive order, "to 
stabilize prices, rents, wages, interest rates, and salaries at levels 
not less than those prevailing on May 25, 1970" - the date the bill was 
introduced. This would authorize full price and wage controls. 

After a day of bewildering maneuvers, the bill was finally 
passed by the astonishingly one-sided vote of 257 to 19, with six other 
Congressmen also "paired" against it. Thus only 25 members of the House 
registered their disapproval of price and wage controls. 

The redoubtable Congressman H.R. Gross stated bluntly: 

. . . no President should be delegated the awful power to take 
over the economy and finances of this Nation without having declared an 
emergency and the reasons therefor. And no Congress should delegate to 
the President such untrammeled power without reguiring such a 
declaration . 

Instead of vetoing it, Mr. Nixon signed the bill - reluctantly, of 
course. Again, Galbraith's "yielding to pressure." Congressman Schmitz 

Price and wage controls will not work in a free country. But to a 
considerable extent they will work in a slave state like Communist 
Russia. If this is the only way we can think of to fight inflation, 
that could be its result .... 

Wage controls, price controls, money controls are really people 
controls - and that is what a socialist dictatorship is all about. 

In December 1969, Congress, in a hurry to adjourn for Christmas, 
almost clandestinely passed the Credit Control Bill under circumstances 
closely paralleling the establishing of the Federal Reserve System some 
fifty years ago. Not one one-hundredth of one per cent of the American 
people know anything about the existence or the significance of this 
blueprint for complete economic tyranny. Yet it is on the books, ready 
to be used whenever the administration feels the time is ripe. 
Congressman H.R. Gross wrote: 

During the past week, President Nixon has signed the legislation 
into law. He did so, "reluctantly," he said, asserting that such 
controls, if used, could "take the nation a long step 

toward a directly controlled economy and ... we can weaken the will 
for needed fiscal and financial discipline." 

Here we have the spectacle of President Nixon, recognizing that 
this is power no government should have except in the event of a dire 
emergency - a power that could well mean outright government control of 
the nation's economy - yet he gave it his blessing by his signature 
making it the law of the land. 

This member of Congress has warned for years that the nation was 
rushing headlong into financial trouble; that the price of spending 
insanity would be regimentation through unholy, dictatorial controls 
from Washington . . . and I am deeply disappointed that President 
Nixon, recognizing the danger, did not have the courage to veto it. 

The legislation provided that without the declaration of an 
emergency or any other kind of a declaration, President Nixon could 
turn over to the Federal Reserve, a privately operated financial 
institution, not only the absolute authority to fix interest rates, but 

the untrammeled power to fix by regulation all the "terms and 
conditions of any extension of credit." 

It is almost impossible to believe, but the legislation provides 
that no citizen could lend another any amount of money unless the 
lender was either registered or licensed to do so. A violation of this 
or any other provision of the legislation would subject the lender to a 
year in jail and a $1,000 fine. THIS IS THE STUFF OF WHICH DICTATORS 

Socialism requires a dictator, and with Mr. Nixon, as Dr. 
Galbraith reminds us, "socialism is the name of the game."* It is 
obvious that we are on our way to another inflation-promoting tax 
increase in the name of fighting inflation. In speaking of projected 
deficits, the President has stated that if government spending, "in 
spite of the strict controls I have placed on it, were to exceed the 
potential yield of the tax system, I would not hesitate to ask the 
Congress for further increases in taxes . . . ."3° It is widely 
reported that Mr. Nixon is "intrigued" (as Time put it) by a "value 
added tax, " which is in effect a national sales tax of the kind 
becoming standard in the Common Market countries. 31 The tax is hidden, 
but as UPI noted on February 13, 

1970, "ultimately, the tax is passed along to the consumer in the form 
of higher prices." If at all possible, the President will wait until 
after the '72 elections to saddle the peasants with a tax hike. 

Mr. Nixon's program of "re-inflation" to end what has been termed 
"stagflation" (economic stagnation accompanied by inflation) has 
international economic implications. 

According to Barron's Financial Weekly of November 16, 1970, it 
"is apt to be the dollar's last hurrah." It is obvious that the 
international monetary game is rigged tighter than a new tennis racquet 
with Rothschild-controlled central banks, bullion dealers, and mining 
interests in England, Germany, France, South Africa and the U.S. (Kuhn, 
Loeb & Company, whose partner, Lewis Strauss, was Nixon's chief money 
raiser, is a Rothschild operation.) The financial ministers of these 
countries do not represent their sovereign nations, but instead 
cooperate with the Insiders in rigging the world monetary situation. 
But the super-inflation planned by Nixon will 

*There is a possibility that Galbraith may deliberately play a part in 
ensuring the re-election of RMN in 1972 - far-fetched as that would 
seem to those who are not aware that he and Nixon are part of the same 
conspiracy - by dividing the Democratic Party. Columnist John 
Chamberlain stated in the October 31, 1970 issue of Human Events: ". . 
. the so-called New Democrats, taking their cue from the new Galbraith 
book, Who Needs The Democrats?, are already busy sowing the dragons' 
teeth that will, as sure as sin, disrupt the Democratic convention of 
1972 if the radicals in the party do not succeed in getting their way. 

"An extremely significant symposium, engineered by the editors of 
the journal called The New Democrat (they happen to be Stephen 
Schlesinger, the son of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Grier Raggio, a 
Mayor John Lindsay functionary in New York City) , shows what the 
Democratic party faces. 

"Addressing a letter to 30 prominent intellectuals, the 
Schiesinger-Raggio team posed this question: 'Do you believe the 
Democratic party is still capable of aggressively reforming itself by 
the 1972 convention, or do you believe that a fourth party is the only 
conceivable means of effecting change in 19727' 

"To this, 18 intellectuals gave their answers, and even those who 
do not favor going out into the wilderness to start a fourth party look 
with complaisance on the idea of using such a party as a prod to force 
a radical platform and candidates on the existing Democratic 
organization . " 

This strategy may be the reason Galbraith wrote his article. It 
appears in a magazine whose circulation is limited almost exclusively 
to New York City, and may be the "transmission belt " informing camp 
followers that Nixon is really the Insiders' boy. 
augment some forty billions of dollars already in the hands of 
Europeans, who can exchange them for gold, and the situation could get 
out of control. Europeans are planning to create a European-bloc gold- 
backed currency, which could be instituted if and when the U.S. cuts 
the dollar loose from gold for foreigners as it has done for its own 
citizens . 

This threat may be used to force acceptance of the plan to turn 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into a world central bank, 
controlling all money of all nations. William McChesney Martin, despite 
the fact that he had already retired as chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board, gave a speech in Basel, Switzerland, on September 14, 1970, at a 
symposium sponsored by the Per Jacobson Foundation, entitled "World 
Central Bank: Essential Evolution," in which he advocated just that. 32 
What area of control could be more decisive than control of world 
money? World money control means world people control. 

Meanwhile, reports persist, albeit unconfirmed, that the U.S. is 
preparing a new money. Myers Financial Review of November 6, 1970 

The rumors keep coming in. They are past the point where I can 
ignore them. Still I can't confirm them. The reports are these: 

The U.S. Treasury has already printed up an enormous supply of 
new currency differing markedly from the present denominations. The 
report is that the new currency will be used internally in the U.S., 
and that all the old currency within the U.S.A. will be called in. The 
old currency, as long as it continues to exist, will be used outside 
the U.S.A. 

I have no inside way of knowing whether this is true. But for 
many months I have been receiving reports that the Treasury has been 
stocked with huge new color presses. I am inclined to lean toward the 
truth of the report, since in Canada we are already getting a fancy new 
currency. The $20 bill looks like Disneyland. It is swiftly replacing 
all old $20 bills. It gives one the impression of a kind of scrip. 
There has been no explanation of why we have replaced our old $20 bills 
with these curiosities. 

It seems to me that this internal U.S. currency would be no 
good outside the country. Not redeemable, it could not be converted 
into Euro-dollars. It would in itself be a most effective foreign 
exchange control. In order to get your money out of your banks to make 
foreign purchases, you would probably have to get special licence from 
the government. 

We may be heading not just for devaluation but for a collapse of 
all money, and a new U.S. paper dollar in exchange for several old 
ones. The November 1970 report of international currency expert Franz 
Pick maintains: "The only open door will be to change the official gold 
value of the MINI-dollar or to exchange 3 or 4 present dollar bills for 
1 new one. "33 

What does the Nixon Game Plan mean? Many economists are 
predicting a superboom (based on inflation, not increased 
productivity), with a Dow Jones rising to possibly 1500, beginning in 
the latter part of 1971 and extending through the 1972 election. Then, 
in 1973 or '74, these economists are predicting that the false boom 
will lead to economic collapse and a depression that will make 1929 
seem like prosperity by comparison. If this happens the cry will be 
that "capitalism has totally failed." 

Gigantic unemployment, particularly among Negroes, would lead to 
nationwide riots, giving the appearance at least of a full-scale 
revolution. The general population would demand a socialist 
dictatorship to end the economic and social chaos . And the Nixon 
administration would be only too happy to comply - "the familiar 
yielding to pressure," as Galbraith says. Nixon is merely following the 
Game Plan established for him by his fellow Insiders, who plucked him 
out of political oblivion following his loss of the governorship of 
California in 1962, brought him to New York, and financed and promoted 
his ascent to the Presidency. A Democratic administration could not get 
away with it, because the Congressional Republicans would expose the 
Game Plan and possibly prevent it. Now most of 
them remain silent, or silenced, all in the name of "party unity." 

In 1934, FDR prohibited Americans from owning gold to protect 
themselves from government money manipulation. Since that time the 
government has destroyed about 80 per cent of the purchasing power of 
the dollar through increases in the money supply. Economist Henry 
Hazlitt has written: 

No sound monetary system is possible so long as governments 
operate on the premises of the new economics. 

The real reforms that are needed are all in the opposite 
direction. Strict limits must be put on the further issue of paper 
money. Ultimately the world must work back to a real gold standard. 

But no nation can achieve sound monetary reform so long as its 
government embarks on huge spending programs, so long as it runs 
unending budget deficits, so long as it keeps printing more money and 
so long as its unions are encouraged to force up wage rates to levels 
that need more inflation to sustain them. In brief, sound money is 
impossible in the welfare state. 

Major nations forbidding their citizens to own gold in modern 
times include: Communist Russia, National Socialist Germany, Socialist 
England, Communist China, and the U.S.A. All dictators fear the private 
ownership of gold. Since FDR's prohibition of gold ownership was not 
passed by Congress but was imposed by inserting an "Executive Order" in 
the Federal Register, Mr. Nixon could abolish this dictatorial edict 
with the stroke of a pen, issuing an "Executive Order" voiding FDR's. 
This would go a long way toward restoring liberty and fiscal sanity in 
America. But there is no more chance that Richard Nixon will restore 
this liberty than there is that Mao Tse-tung will convert to 
Christianity. Why? Why can't Americans own gold? Isn't that an 
interesting guestion? 

Barron's Financial Weekly reports that well over a decade ago 
Malcolm Bryan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of 
Atlanta, bluntly told an audience: "We should have the decency to say 
to the money saver, 'Hold still, Little Fish! All we intend is to gut 
you.' " In the end we shall all be gutted if the Whittier Machiavelli ' s 
Socialist Game Plan is not exposed and reversed. 

The End Is Power 

It was early in the Nixon administration that Senator Hugh Scott 
bragged that while the Conservatives were getting the words, the 
Liberals got the action. Two. years later, in December 1970, the 
American Conservative Union's newsletter, Republican Battle Line, 
lamented: "Well, at mid-point, we think we can say conservatives are no 
longer even getting the words. Only the knife." 

Those who have followed Nixon's career closely were not 
surprised. Nixon courts the Conservatives when he needs help and the 
rest of the time treats them like lepers. Yet Nixon still manages to 
retain his overall image as a Conservative and comes under hard attack 
from the Left. Stewart Alsop, in a column titled "Nixon to the Left of 
Himself," discusses this phenomenon: 

In his farewell address at the White House, President Nixon's 
favorite liberal Democrat, Daniel P. Moynihan, credited the Nixon 
Administration with "much genuine achievement." "And yet," he added, 
more in sorrow than in anger, "how little the Administration is 
credited with what it has achieved . . . Depressing, even frightening 
things are being said [by Liberals] about the Administration. They are 
not true . " 1 

Alsop claims that if Nixon were judged by his deeds instead of 
his ancient image, the Liberals' attitude toward him would be 
different. If only the Liberals' Pavlovian response to the Nixon name 
could be eliminated, says Alsop, 


they would realize how far Left he is. Therefore Alsop substitutes a 

hypothetical "President Liberal" for President Nixon 

. . . If President Liberal were actually in the White House, it 
is not at all hard to imagine the reaction to his program. The right 
would be assailing President Liberal for bugging out of Vietnam, 
undermining American defenses, fiscal irresponsibility, and galloping 
socialism. The four basic Presidential policy positions listed above 
would be greeted with hosannas by the liberals .... 

Instead, the liberals have showered the President with dead cats, 
while most conservatives have maintained a glum silence, and thus the 
Administration has been "little credited" for "much genuine 
achievement." But there are certain special reasons, which Pat Moynihan 
omitted to mention, why this is so. 

Alsop goes on to explain how it helps Nixon in passing the Liberal 
Democrats' program to have the reputation of being an enemy of Liberal 
Democrats : 

For one thing, there is a sort of unconscious conspiracy between 
the President and his natural enemies, the liberal Democrats, to 
conceal the extent to which his basic program, leaving aside frills and 
rhetoric, is really the liberal Democratic program. Richard Nixon is 
the first professional politician and "real Republican" to be elected 
President in 40 years - and it is not in the self-interest of the 
liberals to give credit to such a President for liberal initiatives. By 
the same token, it is not in the self-interest of the President to risk 

his conservative constituency by encouraging the notion that he is not 
a "real Republican" after all, but a liberal Democrat at cut rates . . 

There are plenty of examples of the mutual obfuscation which 
results from this mutual interest. The withdrawal of half a million men 
from Vietnam is quite obviously the greatest retreat in American 
history. But the President talks as though it were somehow a glorious 
advance, certain to guarantee a "just and lasting peace." When the 
President - like any commander of a retreat - resorts to spoiling 
actions to protect his dwindling rear guard, the liberals howl that he 
is "chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of military victory." 

. . . When the President cuts back real military strength more 
sharply than in a quarter of a century, the liberals attack him for 
failing to "reorder priorities." The President, in his rhetoric about a 
"strong defense," plays the same game. The result, as John Kenneth 
Galbraith accurately noted recently, is that "most people and maybe 
most congressmen think the Administration is indulging the Pentagon 
even more than the Democrats," which is the precise opposite of the 
truth .... 

Alsop continued what is probably the most damnifying column ever 
written about Richard Nixon by noting the role that the mass media have 
played in portraying to the public an image that is the reverse of the 
truth : 

. . . There is also a human element in this exercise in mutual 
obfuscation. To the liberals, especially the liberal commentators who 
dominate the media, Richard Nixon is Dr. Fell ("The reason why I cannot 
tell, but this I know and know full well, I do not like thee, Dr. 
Fell") . This is not surprising. Not too many years ago, Richard M. 
Nixon was one of the most effective - and least lovable - of the 
conservative Republican professionals of the McCarthy era. 

The columnist, himself a member of the ADA, speculated on what the "old 
Nixon" would have had to say about the "new Nixon": 

. . . on his past record, it is not at all hard to imagine R.M. 
Nixon leading the assault on the President for his "bug-out," "fiscal 
irresponsibility," "galloping socialism," and all the rest of it. So 
how can one expect Mr. Nixon to defend President Liberal's program with 
the passionate conviction that a President Robert Kennedy, say, would 
have brought to the defense of such a program? 

Alsop has revealed the real Nixon. He could not be more pleased. 
Those who voted for Nixon aren't quite so happy or shouldn't be. If you 
liked the Richard Nixon who ran for 

the Presidency, then you cannot, if you are consistent, like the 
Richard Nixon who is President. Nixon and his fellow "moderates" have 
turned the Republican elephant into a donkey in elephant's clothing. On 
June 19, 1959, Vice President Nixon gloated: "In summary, the 
Republican administration produced the things that the Democrats 
promised." It looks as if it's happening again! 

A year and a half earlier Nixon had been warbling a different 

If we have nothing to offer other than a pale carbon copy of the 
New Deal, if our only purpose is to gain and retain power, the 

Republican Party no longer has any reason to exist, and it ought to go 
out of business. 2 

Alsop is right. According to the "old Nixon," the Republican Party 
should disband. Norman Thomas said, in effect, that the American people 
would not knowingly vote for socialism, but under the guise of 
"Liberalism" they would adopt socialist measures until one day they 
would be living under a socialist state without knowing how it all came 
about . 3 

U.S. News & World Report noted: 

The late Norman Thomas, who ran unsuccessfully for President six 
times on the Socialist Party ticket, observed in 1964 that the 
Democrats "have through the years taken over measures once regarded as 
Socialist, but then so have the Republicans but to a slightly less 
degree . "4 

If Thomas were alive today, he would applaud the Nixon administration 
with great glee. The Republicans have been conquered by Fabian- 
Socialist patient gradualism. First we oppose, next we endure, then we 
embrace. That is the tragic story of the Republican party. Republican 
support of Nixon merely lends respectability to his implementation of 
the Marxist programs described by Alsop. Democrats have long 
accused Nixon of being tricky. Republicans tended to react to the 
accusation in a Pavlovian manner, accusing the Democrats of partisan 
political slander. Actually, though the Democrats have badly 
misinterpreted Nixon's true ideology, they have understood his 
character very well. And many Republicans who have worked closely with 
Nixon in past campaigns know that he is tricky. He is also cunning and 
clever. He has been an actor and debater since his youth and he knows 
all the tricks of the trade. Nixon tries to cover his reputation for 
deviousness by seeming to go overboard in his speeches to be fair. He 
also prefaces statements with phrases like "let me make it perfectly 
clear," "putting it bluntly," "speaking quite frankly," or "to be 
perfectly candid." What follows is usually anything but clear, blunt, 
frank or candid. Democrats have accused Nixon with more than a little 
validity of having been on every side of every issue. Many of them 
resent his appropriating their pet issues. However, most political 
analysts dismiss Nixon's incursions into the land of Liberalism as 
symptomatic of his pragmatism. Now, Nixon claims to be a pragmatist; 
but in his book, Six Crises, he claimed: 

. . . My philosophy has always been: don't lean with the wind. 
Don't do what is politically expedient. Do what your instinct tells you 
is right. Public opinion polls are useful if a politician uses them 
only to learn approximately what the people are thinking, so that he 
can talk to them more intelligently. The politician who sways with the 
polls is not worth his pay. And I believe the people will eventually 
catch up with the man who merely tells them what he thinks they want to 
hear. 5 

Washington Post political reporter David Broder wrote in a column 
on April 8, 1969: 

Pragmatism is the operating philosophy of this Administration. 
The Nixon White House, as one insider remarked, is not "an intensely 
ideological environment." Lacking ideology or even a 

strong set of goals and values, the Administration has a tendency to 
drift. 6 

Baloney! The alleged "pragmatism" is merely a cover-up for the "genuine 
achievement" of Liberal aims (socialism) of which Alsop spoke. 

Most people look at the Nixon administration and see only the 
confusion produced by the President's alleged pragmatism. Kevin 
Phillips wrote: "... the Nixon administration's mixture of hard 
rhetoric with contradictory programming and overall lack of vision wins 
no plaudits . " 

Nixon is not bungling or stupid, he is brilliant and cunning. And 
what he is doing is not stupid but brilliant - from the standpoint of 
the Insiders. Author G. Edward Griffin has said: 

It's always a source of amazement to me when I hear someone 
criticize our leaders for being confused in the area of foreign policy, 
or reversing their position, of bungling the job and not having any 
long-range goals. These men are not bungling the job. They're acting in 
accordance with a definite, well thought out plan, and they've been 
executing that plan with brilliant precision. We may or may not like 
the plan, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there isn't 
any .... 

The Grand Design has absolutely nothing to do with partisan 
politics. These men aren't nearly as much Republicans or Democrats as 
they are world politicians. They've got bigger things to occupy their 
minds than mere party labels. To them, partisan politics is only a game 
to amuse the masses who crave the showmanship of big national 
conventions, the excitement of partisan campaigns, and the satisfaction 
of casting a vote in the illusion that, somehow, they're really helping 
to decide the important issues of the day. But, with precious few 
exceptions, for the past two decades the American voter has had to make 
his choice between Grand Designer A and Grand Designer B . . . .7 

And Thomas Jefferson once observed: 

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion 
of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, 
and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly 
prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery. 8 

Benjamin Disraeli, the British statesman much admired by Nixon, 
wrote a novel called Coningsby whose chief characters were thinly 
disguised take-offs on the Rothschilds. Disraeli was a close friend of 
the Rothschilds and a Rothschild agent. In his book he has a 
"Rothschild" say: "So, you see, my dear Coningsby, the world is 
governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those 
who are not behind the scenes. "9 

Nixon is now a man who works for the men behind the scenes - the 
Rothschild-Rockefeller world empire which helped to establish and now 
controls Communism. David Broder writes in his book on the Republican 
Party: "For Richard Nixon, the end is power - specifically the 
incomparable power of the presidency . . . . "1° Nixon now has power - 
fantastic power - over the lives of 200 million Americans. He has more 
power than a good man would want or an evil man should have. Richard 
Nixon, the man of unbounded and, unfortunately, unprincipled ambition 

has reached the top of the political heap. And at the same time he has 
acquired considerable wealth - something else he has always wanted. He 
has been rewarded well for his services. The only thing left for him 
now would be to head a world government . 

The fact that Nixon is a Republican is all the better for the 
Insiders. Unfortunately, many Republicans take it as a personal attack 
on themselves when it is suggested that there is a conspiracy working 
within their own party. They should not be offended. It is no 
reflection on the rank and file unless they continue to tolerate it 
once the conspiracy has 

been exposed. It is only natural for a conspiracy to try .to control 
both (or all) political parties. It would not do to have a pro- 
conspiracy party and an anti-conspiracy party or a pro-socialist party 
and an anti-socialist party. The "antis" would ruin the game by 
exposing it. And exposure is the one thing a conspiracy cannot stand. 
The voters would have "a choice, not an echo." When both parties are 
infiltrated, pleas for party unity can be made that take the spotlight 
off the conspirators. As the two parties become more alike, elections 
center around personalities and means, not goals. The Insiders believe 
that Conservatives are trapped within the party. As the late Thomas E. 
Dewey, a top Insider and possibly the most important man to Richard 
Nixon's presidential aspirations, once arrogantly expressed it: "Let 
them [Conservatives] write letters, let them petition, let them pass 
resolutions; just as long as they have no place else to go, forget 
them." I I 

Without a pipeline to the councils of the Insiders, it is 
impossible to predict just what their exact plans and timing are for 
the coming years. But one needs no pipeline to tell that they are 
moving very swiftly toward their final goal - a one-world socialist 
government that they will control. In order to accomplish this, Nixon 
is doing everything possible to centralize power in the federal 
government, so that control of the federal government will mean 
automatic control over all state and local governments. Then from the 
federal government sovereignty can be transferred to a world 
government. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was Governor of New York, he 
said: "Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masguerading as 
democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority 
and control be centralized in our National Government."* Later, as 

'Interestingly, Nixon's favorite President is Woodrow Wilson, the man 
who started us on the road to rule by the Insider oligarchy by 
establishing the progressive income tax, direct election of Senators, 
and the Federal Reserve System. 

Roosevelt was to go a long way toward bringing about the government by 
oligarchy which he predicted. What we are going to see is a 
dictatorship of the elite disguised as a dictatorship of the 
proletariat . 

Much, if not all, of the solidification of power will come 
between 1972 and 1976. In all probability the Insiders want Nixon to 
have a second term because they believe there will be far less 
resistance if the coup de grace is administered to the American 
Republic by a Republican rather than a Democrat. Because the socialism 
enacted by previous administrations is really catching up with the 
American economy, it may be necessary for the Insiders to institute a 
fourth party on the far left, possibly headed by John Lindsay, in order 
to divide the Democrat vote and re-elect Richard Nixon. Although 

Richard Nixon's popularity is down as this is written, he has many 
weapons with which to create a false euphoria to facilitate his re- 
election in 1972. A seeming end to the Vietnam war, combined with the 
semblance of a return to prosperity at home, would be a tough 
combination to beat. 

After re-election in 1972 Nixon would have no political brake on 
his final drive to socialism, unless enough Constitutional 
Conservatives who understand the conspiracy can be elected in 1972 to 
head the Insiders off at the pass. It is apparent that Nixon would like 
to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the United States 
by instituting a United States of the World - a step that would be 
ballyhooed as the most significant event in world history since the 
Declaration of Independence. It would be PR'd as bringing permanent 
peace and prosperity, but in reality, it would be a world dictatorship, 
bringing with it a 1984-style slavery. As the Insiders' mouthpiece 
James Reston noted: 

. . . He [Nixon] will zig zag [left and right] to avoid the 
torpedoes and take advantage of the wind, but his destination is 
to preside over the great festival of freedom in 1976, and to get 
there from here he must eventually go to the left. 

Turn The Insiders Out 

Communism will not come to the United States under that name. It 
will be called the New Freedom, the New Politics, Participatory 
Democracy, the Greater Society, the New Federalism, or some other such 
vacuous slogan. Almost all Americans are against Communism, but they 
don't know what it is. America can stop the Communists when the 
Insiders are exposed and the public realizes that the primary threat 
against the Republic comes from within, not from without. In the coming 
years the government will assume more and more emergency powers to meet 
various "temporary crises." Of course, the crises will not be 
temporary, and neither will the assumption of power. If the last steps 
down the long road to dictatorship are taken by a Republican President, 
the job of the conspirators will be easier. The Insiders realize this 
and will have one of their own, Richard Nixon, doing an acting job as a 
"Conservative Republican." In the name of "party unity" good 
Republicans will swallow docilely gigantic increases in dictatorial 
government power which, if instituted by Democrats, they would resist 
tenaciously. Many Republicans will actually defend such depredations 
(if a bit sheepishly), just as Republicans defended Dwight Eisenhower 
as he broke his campaign promises, one after another. 

Fourteen signposts on the road to totalitarianism were compiled 
some years ago by historian Dr. Warren Carroll and a refugee from 
Yugoslavian Communism, Mike Djordjevich. 


The original list was not in any particular order, nor is the order in 
which the points are listed here of any particular significance. The 
imposition of any one of these new restrictions on liberty (none of 
which are now in effect) would be a clear warning that the total state 
is very near; and once a significant number of them - say five - have 
been imposed, we will be justified in concluding that the remainder, or 
most of the remainder, will not be far behind, and that the fight for 
freedom and the preservation of the Republic has been lost in this 
country. The fourteen signposts are: 

1. Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the 
establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American 
citizen . 

2. Abolition of private ownership of hand guns. 

3. Detention of individuals without judicial process. 

4. The reguirement that private financial transactions be keyed 
to social security numbers or other government identification, so that 
government may conveniently record these transactions and feed the 
record into a computer. 

5. Use of compulsory education laws to forbid attendance at 
presently existing private schools. 

6. Compulsory non-military service. 

7 . Compulsory psychological treatment for nongovernment workers 
or public school children. 

8. The official declaration that anti-Communist organizations are 
subversive, and subseguent legal action to suppress them. 

9. Laws limiting the number of people allowed to meet in a 
private home. 

10. Any significant change in passport regulations that makes 
passports more difficult to obtain or use. 

11. Wage and price controls, especially in a non-wartime 
situation . 

12. Any kind of compulsory registration with the 
government of the individual's place of employment. 

13. Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United 
States . 

14. Any example of a new major law made by executive decree (that 
is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized, as by existing 
executive orders) . 

Steps 1,2,5,6,7,8,11,12 and 13 have already been proposed and 
some are being actively campaigned for by organized groups. For 
example, Step 1 - The Travel tax urged by President Johnson would have 
reguired the declaration of the amount of money being taken out of the 
country, and in the discussion of this proposal it was seriously 
suggested that a flat dollar limit be placed on the amount that could 
be removed. Step 5 - Increased government control over private schools 
of many kinds is proposed annually in many state legislatures. Step 6 - 
Compulsory non-military service - a universal draft of all young men 
and women, with only a minority going into the armed services - has 
been discussed by the Nixon administration as an alternative to the 
draft. Step 7 - Sensitivity training is already reguired for an 
increasing number of government workers, teachers, and school children. 
Step 8 - As long ago as 1961, Victor Reuther proposed that Right-wing 
anti-Communist groups and organizations be investigated and placed on 
the Attorney General's subversive list. Step 11 - Prospects for wage 
and price controls were discussed in Chapter 14. Step 2 - The 
propaganda war in process to force registration or confiscation of 
firearms is the number one priority of all the collectivists - an armed 
citizenry being the major roadblock to a totalitarian takeover of the 
United States. 

How can a dictatorship in America be headed off? Truth is a 
powerful weapon - but only when it is used properly. Not everyone has 
the courage to face the facts, but facts must be faced, even when they 
are discouraging. Any action taken on 

the basis of truth is better than action taken on the basis of 
falsehood, misconception, and self-deceit. The facts contained in this 
book are so powerful that some may choose to run and hide - others to 
ignore them - while still others will throw up their hands in 
discouragement. This is exactly what the Insiders want you to do. City 
Hall wants you to believe you can't fight City Hall. The salvation of 
America reguires an army of educators, armed with truth and facts and 
tenaciously dedicated to principle. Many have tried to bypass the 
education step in the process and go directly to political action, and 
this has resulted only in the wasting of precious time. Action that is 
not based upon knowledge and understanding is really worse than no 
action at all. It is not too late to save America if a sufficient 
number of Americans will stand up, face reality, and go to work. 

The fact is that the Republican party is now little more than a 
name. America's two-party system has guietly been replaced by the 
virtual dictatorship of an "invisible government." Today, the Council 
on Foreign Relations and the Insiders behind it control our federal 
government at practically every level and in every branch. But it need 
not control Congress. The Senate must ratify all treaties and confirm 
all appointments. The Senate, therefore, can stop the Council on 
Foreign Relations and save America, if the people will demand that 
their Senators live up to their oath to uphold the Constitution of the 

United States. By the Constitution, all spending bills must originate 
in the House of Representatives. No matter who is in the White House, 
our Congressional representatives can cut spending drastically and 
force the executive branch to return America to a sound currency and 
sane fiscal policy. 

This is the answer to the guestion: If not Nixon, who? 
Americanists are going to have to face up to the reality that almost 
short of a miracle they are not going to elect an anti-conspiracy 
Conservative to the Presidency in 

1972. To back one of the conspiracy's candidates because he appears to 
be slightly less Leftist than the other makes no sense at all. 

There is no denying that the Insiders start with many advantages 
- big money, big power, big press, and a big bag of campaign tricks 
perfected since 1936. The one thing the Insiders and their pawns, the 
moderates, do not have is a grass-roots following of political 
activists within the party. This is their Achilles' heel. They attempt 
to overcome it by constantly preaching unity to the Conservatives. 
Unity with one's enemies is always a trap. A known enemy in the open is 
better than a false friend in ambush. And Liberal Republicans are as 
much the enemies of Conservative Republicans as Liberal Democrats are - 
maybe more so. Every Conservative must stand up and proclaim to the 
world that he will not be part of a unified socialist Republican party. 

One of the conspiracy's chief weapons is the desire of most 
people for respectability or social prestige. To guestion "party unity" 
is to become unrespectable . Unfortunately, some people are more 
interested in saving their social respectability than they are in 
saving their lives and their country. For many of these people, nominal 
Republicans, the primary difference between a Democrat and a Republican 
administration in Washington is that when the Republicans are in they 
get invited to gala social functions, and when the Democrats are in 
they don't. (But there won't be any cocktail parties in the 
concentration camps.) Conservative Republicans must face the fact that 
most GOP Liberals at the local level, while certainly not conspirators, 
are social climbers who are more interested in being invited to the 
"right" parties by the "right" people than in what is happening to the 
country. These people are Republicans for social or business purposes, 
not for ideological reasons. And since the knowledgeable Left within 
the Republican Party will always use the media to paint Conservatives 
as "extrem- 
ists," the so-called moderates will always be the ones carrying the 
aura of respectability. Americanists have to forget these shallow 
phonies and recruit honest concerned Americans from the Democratic 
party . 

In 1936, Al Smith, who had been the Democrat party's presidential 
candidate eight years earlier, had the courage to speak out about what 
he saw happening in his party, just as many Republicans today are being 
forced to speak out about what is happening to theirs. Smith said: 

Make a test for yourselves. Just get the platform of the 
Democratic party and get the platform of the Socialist party and lay 
them down on your dining room table side by side and get a heavy lead 
pencil and scratch out the word Democrat and scratch out the word 
Socialist and let those two platforms lay there .... 

Ninety percent of what was in the Socialist Party platform of the 
'30's has now been adopted as the law of the land under the leadership 
of the Democrats. Take a look at the 1968 Republican party platform. 

Does it promise to repeal socialism? Or only to run it more 
efficiently? If the Democrat party takes us into socialism and the 
Republican party perpetuates it, then freedom is doomed. Expediency 
leads to slavery. The middle of the road is the path to ever-increasing 
doses of Marxian socialism. 
Al Smith said: 

I suggest to the members of my party on Capitol Hill here in 
Washington that they take their minds off the Tuesday that follows the 
first Monday in November. Just take their minds off it to the end that 
you may do the right thing and not the expedient thing. 

And he stated further: 

You can't mix socialism or Communism with [the Constitution] . 
They are like oil and water .... They refuse to mix. It is 
all right with me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas 
or Karl Marx or Lenin or any of the rest of that bunch, but what I 
won't stand for is to let them march under the banner of Jefferson, 
Jackson or Cleveland. 

Today, a Republican Al Smith must speak up and say that 
Republican socialists won't be allowed to march under the banner of 
Lincoln and Taft. 
Smith concluded by saying: 

Let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one capitol, 
Washington or Moscow. There can only be one atmosphere of government, 
the clear, pure, fresh air of free America or the foul breath of 
Communist Russia. There can be only one flag, the stars and stripes, or 
the red flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet. There can be only one 
national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale. 

The Republican party needs its own Al Smith. 

Earl Browder, then general secretary of the Communist Party, in 
an address before the National Press Club in Washington in August 1936 
told the assembled reporters: 

The program of the Socialist Party and the program of the 
Communist Party have a common origin in the document known as the 
Communist Manifesto. There is no difference, so far as the program is 
concerned and final aim. 

The socialists follow the lead of the Communists, the Democrats follow 
the lead of the socialists, and the Republicans follow the lead of the 
Democrats. Before we can go Communist, we must first go socialist. Who 
cares whether the collectivist dictator is theoretically a Republican 
or a Democrat? Most Republican nominees for high offices have 
completely ceased even to use the word "socialism" in their attacks on 
the Democrats. They bleat only of wasteful spending, not of big 
spending, and promise efficiency and 

leadership in running the programs the Democrats have already 
legislated. But either you believe in the principles of Karl Marx or 
you believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and 
the Constitution: there can be no middle ground. If the grass-roots 
Republican activists will not force their party to stand for principle, 
then it will continue to be a cheap imitation of Socialist Party A. 

We have indeed witnessed bipartisan treason in Washington. The 
vast majority of Republicans have supported Nixon's continuation of 
Lyndon Johnson's no-win policy in Vietnam. Most have said nothing of 
the fact that the United States is financing both sides of the war 
through aid and trade with the Communist bloc. They have also said 
little or nothing of the organized and subversive elements that are 
running the street revolution in America. If the public had known the 
truth about these events, the course of American history would have 
been changed for the better. The Republican party has enough money and 
power at its command to make sure that the truth does get to the 
public. Yes, the party could do it if it really wanted to. The mass 
media may be in the hands of Liberal Democrats, but the advertisers 
are, for the most part, theoretical Republicans. Since the media would 
collapse without the advertising dollar, the advertisers could bring 
pressure to bear on the media to stop propagandizing the American 
public and tell them the available facts. If purged of Liberals and 
Insiders, the Republican National Committee could publish its own 
newspaper and see that it got wide distribution. The Republican party 
could serve as a vehicle for getting the truth to the American people - 
but only if the enemies of the truth are purged, in the way that 
Conservatives have been systematically purged from high places in the 
party since Republican Advance was formed in 1950. 

The Republican party can again be the great party it was. But to 
do so it must stand for principle and refuse to 

compromise between right and wrong. It must shun the temptation to 
pander to assorted voting blocs. It must show that Communism can be 
defeated short of warfare by simply stopping the practice of propping 
it up every time it falls on its face. The main issues must be American 
sovereignty and independence, the return to a sound dollar, and an end 
to something-f or-nothing promising contests. The Republican Party 
platform must avow that those who advocate bloody revolution and 
criminals will be subjected to swift and just punishment. The lives and 
property of law-abiding citizens must once again become the primary 
concern of our courts. Above all, the target must be the real enemy, 
Communism, and the Insiders behind it. 

Weaklings will whine, "Conservatives can't win." There is much 
evidence to the contrary, but even if it were true, men and women of 
morality and principle have no other choice than to stick by their guns 
in defense of what is right. For if the Republican party must become 
socialist in order to win elections, then the elections are not worth 
winning. By copying the enemy instead of fighting him, all chance of 
defeating him will be lost. 

Conservatives need to develop articulate spokesmen who can use 
the technigues of the modern mass media to get their message to the 
public. The Conservative message of individual liberty is the "politics 
of hope, " the real and only genuine solution for the problems that 
beset us. Most important, we must go on the offensive, calling the 
enemy by his right name. The weakness of the Conservative is supposed 
to lie in his failure to be all things to all people. He can turn these 
lemons into lemonade. The public will respond favorably to a public 
figure who takes a stand for principle, even if they do not altogether 
agree with the principle. Principles transcend personalities. When the 
tide begins to turn, the "pragmatists" will jump on the Americanist 
bandwagon. As Battle Line noted in December 1969: 

It is for this very reason that conservatives should and must 
fight for their beliefs within the Republican Party. Pragmatists are 
notoriously susceptible to pressure, and in the absence of 

commitment to principle, this is understandable. This means that 
conservatives must speak out and be heard or lose their case. 

Conservatives must find candidates whose convictions run deeper 
than merely the ability to select ghostwriters, as was the case with 
Goldwater. In 1964; Conservatives put all their emotional eggs into a 
very shallow basket. Goldwater was more interested in playing with his 
ham radio than in doing his homework by reading von Mises, Bastiat, or 
Evans. Conservatives must learn to put their faith in principles, not 
in personalities. 

Conservatives must find candidates who will be Americans first 
and Republicans second; who will dare to be mavericks within their own 
party and not sell out principles every time the moderates wail about 
party unity. Most Republicans have a simple platform - get elected. Any 
unified GOP can only become the same thing that the unified Democrat 
Party has become: an unprincipled prostitute. Men of principle are 
against "unity" and blind loyalties. There is no person or secular 
institution in the world to which we owe or should feel blind loyalty. 
We should be for what we know is right, regardless of race, color, kin, 
or previous condition of misinformation. 

Americans must readjust their political thinking; they must learn 
to think in terms of Council-on-Foreign-Relations versus anti-Council- 
on-Foreign-Relations politicians. Now is the time for all good men to 
forget the Party. The Republican Party is nothing more than a tool, an 
instrument. Intrinsically, it deserves no loyalty. 

Once a Conservative has been elected, we must pay attention to 
what he does after the election. Many people are elected as 
Conservatives, only to turn Liberal. When all the effort to elect a man 
has been successful, the job has only 

begun. Grass-roots Conservatives must keep track of what their man is 
doing. These candidates must be tied down with a commitment to remain 
independent - loyal to principle, not to party. The best way, of 
course, is to start with an honorable man and make sure he knows the 
kinds of pressure he must expect once he gets into office. Candidates 
must understand the conspiracy, its goals, and how it operates. 

The candidate must be willing to face and accept the fact that if 
he does an honest and honorable job he may have only one term in 
office. One of the major sicknesses in any legislature is that as soon 
as a man is elected, being re-elected becomes his prime concern. The 
rationalization used by many who begin their careers as Conservatives 
is that "losers don't legislate." Their whole object then becomes 
merely to win elections and stay in office, and this is accomplished by 
compromising until victory becomes meaningless. Typical is this 
statement made to Congressman John G. Schmitz when he was in the 
California State Senate, by a fellow State Senator: 

I'm just as conservative as you are. It's just that I realize 

you've got to win. You have to go along to get along. You have to 
play the game. Look at me . I'm a committee chairman of the 

[blank] committee. 

Senator Schmitz 's answer was, "Yes, as long as you keep putting 
out liberal votes, they are going to keep you chairman of that 
committee . " 

In order to make sure that your local representatives stay on the 
track and don't succumb to the temptation to "play the game," every 

local area should have a watchdog committee to keep track of its 
elected representatives. No politician is going to like this, and the 
ones most apt to compromise are the ones who will like it the least. 
The watchdog committee must have the courage (and it takes courage) to 
tell the representative that if he doesn't stand 100 per cent for 
principle, he will be opposed in the next primary. This may result in 
the temporary election of a Democrat, but the next Republican elected 
to office from that district will stand 100 per cent for principle 
because he knows what is going to happen to him if he doesn't. This is 
the only practical way to deal with politicians; it is the way all 
politicians understand. 

The real Republicans must declare war on ersatz Republicans and 
kick the conspirators and their social-climbing flunkies out of the 
party. Conservatives who attempt to do this will, of course, be 
vilified by the press and news media. They will be accused of 
everything the Liberals have actually done, particularly of following a 
rule-or-ruin policy. But New York and its Insiders can no longer 
dominate the Republican party as they once did. New York is no longer 
the sole financial center for the nation, and the growth of the South 
and West has shifted political power away from the Eastern seaboard. 
Therefore, the Insiders cannot control the body of the Republican 
party; but they still control the apex. It is their control that can be 
and must be severed. Conservatives must use their grass-roots control 
over party organizations to re-establish the Republican party as a 
Conservative party. Funds must be channeled to selected local 
Conservative candidates rather than sent to the Republican National 
Committee, which is always controlled by the Eastern Liberal 
Establishment - although almost every GOP mailing from House, Senate, 
and other national campaign groups emphasizes the fact that there is a 
difference between the Democrats and the GOP, that one party is 
Leftist, while the other holds to traditional Conservative principles 
of fiscal prudence, anti-communism, and limited government. 

The fallacy in total acceptance of this Republican argument has 
never been better illustrated than in a recent interview with Senator 
John Tower of Texas, chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign 
Committee. Tower, a Conservative in his own right, sees his campaign 
post solely as a funnel 

through which to dispense funds to Republican candidates, regardless of 
their personal political views or party loyalty. Senator Tower told the 
New York Times Magazine in April 1970: 

I don't care whether a Republican candidate is liberal or 
conservative. The only thing I am interested in is whether or not 
they are electable - I'm in a numbers game right now, not a 
philosophical game. 

By turning the Insiders out, real Republicans will only be doing 
what the Insiders have been doing to them since the birth of Republican 
Advance in July 1950. Even the outer wheels of this wheels-within- 
wheels conspiracy have gotten into the act of emasculating the party's 
Conservatives . 

Dorothy Ray Healey, official chairman of the Southern California 
Communist Party, writing in the December 1964 issue of Political 
Affairs (the official Communist theoretical journal, in which the 
"party line" is laid down for the comrades), calls for the expulsion of 
anti-Communists from the Republican party. She states that it is 
perfectly legitimate for Republicans to complain of "high taxes and 

rising crime" as long as there is no discussion of Communism. Although 
no cause and effect relationship can be proven, within months of the 
Communist Party's call for the expulsion of antiCommunists from the 
Republican party, Liberal and Moderate leaders within the party began 
calling for the purge of all John Birch Society members from party 
ranks. There may have been no connection between the Communist Party 
directive and the actions of Republican leaders, but at the very least, 
they were doing exactly what the Communists wanted. 

Any worthwhile movement takes courage. The easiest thing to do is 
to continue to drift with the tide, even when the tide is running 
Leftward. If you are tempted to stand for principle you will be told, 
"You are throwing your vote 

away" by refusing to support all Republican candidates. Actually, you 
are throwing your freedom away if you do support them all 
indiscriminately. The dilemma most often faced by Conservative 
political activists is that of being dissatisfied or disillusioned with 
the Republican candidate, yet knowing that the Democrat will be even 
worse. If Conservatives are willing to be satisfied with the lesser of 
two evils, they will never have anything but evils to choose between. 
This is the primary way in which Liberals and opportunists have 
effectively disenfranchised Conservatives who stand for principle. By 
withholding your vote, or voting for a protest candidate, you are not 
throwing your vote away. You are, in fact, making it felt in the 
strongest possible way. You throw your vote away only when you are 
willing to compromise. It is time to vote for an outsider. 

You will be told that you are destroying the two-party system if 
you stand for principle, but in fact we no longer have a two-party 
system, and by voting for principle you will be taking the only measure 
that can reestablish it. It is those who will accept a Richard Nixon 
because he is not guite so socialistic as a Hubert Humphrey who are in 
reality throwing their votes and their birthright away. If one 
candidate wants to go toward socialism at one hundred miles an hour and 
another candidate wants to go toward that same goal at only fifty miles 
an hour, they are both headed toward the same goal and both will 
eventually get there. The choice between going toward slavery faster 
and going more slowly is no choice at all. These are false 
alternatives. The real choice is between true freedom and slavery. 

Political activists always make up a small percentage of the 
population. If Conservatives are willing to settle for a candidate who 
is slightly less socialistic than the Democratic candidate, then the 
broad masses of the American public will never be presented with the 
real issue of freedom versus slavery. Americans will be led to believe 
that the choice is 

merely between aspirin and some other pain killer, as they were in 
1960. Many political activists are unknowingly playing games with the 
Insiders, using their rules. You can't win with a stacked deck. It 
takes courage to stand against the tide and to oppose what is morally 
wrong. But in your heart you know you have no other choice. 

George E. Sokolsky, writing in the New York Herald Tribune of 
March 29, 1937, described what it was like when a tiny minority of 
Communists took over in Russia: 

Long before the Communist revolution transferred political power 
from Kerensky to Lenin, the workers had destroyed all rights and 
private property .... Private property disappeared before the rights 
of human beings disappeared. 

What were intelligent, educated people doing? What were 
businessmen and bankers doing? At that moment each man was looking 
after himself. Some were seeking to get in under the tape. They would 
assist the Bolsheviks; then the Bolsheviks would let them live. Some 
were attempting to save a few effects .... Others were trying one 
compromise after another .... Even their newspapers ceased to print 
articles favorable to them, because their reporters and writers were 
organized in unions and they would permit only such news and views to 
be printed as the union ordered . 

. . .The businessmen applauded with merriment. They would make 
money, they felt, no matter what kind of politician was in power. In 
the end they had nothing. Their property, their human rights and their 
lives were taken from them . 

. . .The organized minority had focused its will on the seizure 
of property and government. The majority was engaged in every 
occupation but the defense of the rights of property and rights of man. 
The minority smashed the majority because only the minority knew what 
it wanted. The majority was destroyed because it could not believe that 
it had to organize to fight and live. Yes, they woke up later, but it 
was too late .... Their tactical advantage was to resist every 
suggestion of compromise while they still possessed power, but they 
lost themselves in painful disputations concerning humane 
considerations until humanity itself was crushed. Compronuse destroyed 
their one weapon for resistance - the army .... 

I saw all this from July in 1917 until March 1918. I saw this 
process .... I have witnessed too many poisons mixed in the melting 
pot of compromise; I have seen too many Pandora's boxes opened by the 
intriguing fingers of compromise. 

There are not two sides to some guestions .... As I write of 
those days in Russia I think of the seizures of property in this 
country .... 

Revolutions are successful when an organized minority discovers 
that the majority is split, is confused, is without vigilance. Then it 
uses revolutionary tactics to confound and confuse the majority by side 
issues, by speeches on humane subjects, by beating the drums of 
progress and liberalism . 

. . . The revolutionists and the compromisers repeat the slogans 
and the adages of all the centuries and of all countries. They play 
upon distress; they create emergencies; they ridicule fundamentals. And 
all sorts of people are taken in by these tricks and they bow to the 
golden calf of humane proposals. Only too late do they learn that this 
emphatic humanity is only a veneer, only a sham in the rise to power. 

The minority stand upon the shoulders of those whom they fool 
only as long as they need protection. When they want to come to earth 
they destroy the props that supported them .... 

The American people do not yet realize that they are in the first 
stage of a revolution. Yet all experience with revolution shows that 
the seizure of private property by lawless bands before whom government 
stands impotent is the first major battle in the destruction of any 
government . 

The battle lines have been drawn. The Republican party must 
accept as its first political premise that you never gain anything when 
you give up principle. (Oh, how the Liberals and Moderates hate that 
word "principle!") To know what is right and not to do it is the worst 
sort of cowardice. And if it's morally wrong it can't be politically 

right. Republicans must listen to St. Paul's admonition: "Follow not a 
multitude to do evil." 

Numerous well-meaning individuals have tried to stop me from 
publishing this book. Some said the timing was bad. Others said that I 
would be smeared and that no one would 

believe the truth. Others wanted to know what it would accomplish and 
said I should not attack the Republican party. They felt we should take 
the best candidate we can get and try to work with him. This book is 
not an attack on rank-and-file Republicans, but an attempt to let them 
know that it is the Insiders who have been stampeding the Elephant. Any 
individual who is willing to compromise with the conspirators is not 
the best we can get because he is not ours. 

A man's judgment is no better than his information. If this book 
makes enough people aware that we are in a lif e-anddeath struggle with 
a conspiracy, it will have accomplished more than enough to make the 
Insiders wish it had never been written. Until grass-roots Republicans 
realize that they are up against a conspiracy which is seeking to 
control both major political parties, their efforts are doomed to 
frustration and failure. For many years the author believed it was 
merely the "Liberal mentality" that was the enemy. The "Liberal 
mentality" is an enemy, but there is more behind America's problems and 
the takeover of the Republican party by the Left than just the "Liberal 
mentality." For it is a conspiracy, not an ideology, that is taking 
over our country. The American people have not swallowed and did not 
vote for the concepts that are now being thrust down their throats by 
Richard Nixon as President - or as an Insider of the conspiracy. They 
voted, in fact, for almost exactly the opposite concepts, proclaimed by 
Richard Nixon the candidate. And Nixon was elected President largely 
because of the rising revulsion against the very pro-Communist policies 
that he is now carrying out with regard to both our foreign affairs and 
our domestic system. So let me repeat: It is the conspiracy that is our 
enemy and our danger. 

The American people must make sure, next time they go through the 
quadrennial ritual of turning the rascals out, that it is the real 
rascals they turn out. We will stay on the same 

merry-go-round, merely switching brightly colored horses, unless a 
sufficient number of people wake up to the con game that has been 
perpetrated by an exceedingly cunning gang of international monopolists 
for the past six decades. It makes no difference whether the man who 
throws out the CFR gang and their philosophy comes from within the 
Democrat, the Republican, or the Amalgamated Intergalactic Party; but 
the candidate must be irreversibly committed to carrying out that act 
before he is elected. 

Yes, there is a conspiracy, and the only way to defeat it is to 
turn the bright light of unequivocal and unwavering truth on it. What 
the conspirators count on most in this whole struggle for the world is 
the short memory, colossal ignorance, good-natured gullibility, and 
incredible apathy of the American people. We are all being "played for 
suckers" in a gigantic confidence game in which the stakes are both our 
freedom and our lives. And all it will take, even now, to escape the 
net that is being pulled tight around us is to wake up enough people to 
the fact that there is a net. 

If five per cent of American citizens wake up and go to work, the 
Insiders will see the rewards of their decades of careful planning 
disintegrate like a pane of glass hit with a sledgehammer. 


When one is attacked it is only natural to attempt to defend 
oneself and reassure one's friends. This author wrote an article for 
the October 1968 issue of American Opinion magazine which, while 
striving to be objective, nevertheless presented much condemnatory 
evidence concerning Richard Nixon. Nixon campaigners screamed like so 
many banshees. Doubtless, the same attempts at obfuscation and 
rationalization will be made in the effort to dull the impact of this 
book, and these ploys are therefore worth examining. 

The Nixon-Agnew Campaign Committee sent out this reply to 
Republicans who were disturbed about the 1968 article: 

The article that you referred to is a slickly-written hatchet job 
that consists of a great many half-truths. It is instructive to note 
that the primary authority for the author of the article was William 
Costello. Mr. Costello was hired by the Democratic National Committee 
to write a book on Mr. Nixon for the 1960 campaign. I think you'll 
agree that any book inspired by the Democratic National Committee on a 
probable Republican presidential candidate, can hardly be described as 
dispassionate or objective. 

We accept as a compliment the statement that the article was 
"slickly written," but the charge that it was a "hatchet job that 
consists of a great many half-truths" is one that Nixon-Agnew 
apparently felt no need to document, nor could they have documented it. 
And of course William Costello was not "the primary authority for the 
author." The aim of Costello (and of the Democratic National Committee, 
if they did indeed instigate his book) was anything else than to show 
that RMN was a Fabian Socialist, internationalist, welfare-state 
Liberal. The book presented Mr. Nixon basically as a "reactionary," an 
"anti-Communist," and an "economic Neanderthal." Costello 's admissions 
of Liberal stands by Nixon were clearly admissions against interest 
that had to be made to keep the book honest. 

Human Events, a generally excellent and Conservative newsweekly 
whose Achilles' heel is its refusal to deal with the Council on Foreign 
Relations web of conspiracy, defended its pro-Nixon stand by claiming 
that this author's article was "riddled with factual errors, 
exaggerations and misinterpretations." It too felt no necessity to cite 
chapter and verse concerning the author's alleged journalistic sins. He 
was to be sentenced to life as a galley-proof slave, to be burned alive 
at the literary stake, or at least to have his literary license 
revoked, without being afforded any opportunity to refute the evidence 
(if any) on which he was charged. 

In retrospect, the American Opinion article projected a much more 
accurate picture of Nixon than did features in other Conservative 
publications. Readers of American Opinion knew what to expect from the 
Nixon administration. Readers of other Conservative publications are in 
a state of shock today, and today these publications still criticize 
Nixon's policies but never come to grips with the character of the man 
and his integrity, or lack of it. 

One can hardly expect those who have a strong vested interest in 
any particular politician to throw in the towel when their boy is 
exposed. Mr. Nixon himself is unlikely to go on national television and 
announce: "O.K. The jig is up. I confess!" Instead, phrases such as 

"half-truths," "distortions," "factual errors," "exaggerations," and 
"guotes out of context" will be used in an effort to cover up. 

Doubtless there are errors in this book despite all the pains 
taken by the author and his editors to eliminate them. The author has 
tried to do his homework faithfully and document his case thoroughly, 
but sources can be erroneous and he is not omniscient. There has never 
been a historical-political biographical book written that did not 
contain errors. Probably no book of any sort has ever been published 
that did not contain at least one typographical error. And all 
quotations are "out of context" unless the entire speech, statement, 
book or article is reproduced. The cry, "I was quoted out of context," 
is often a red herring. Quoting out of context is reprehensible only if 
the author has done it deliberately to give a distorted or dishonest 
connotation different from the intended meaning. Nit-pickers will try 
to get the reader to focus on trivia and minutiae rather than on the 
mountains of evidence that prove the case against Nixon. 

Other critics have complained that the author in his 1968 
magazine article relied heavily on Liberal commentators to prove that 
Nixon was a Liberal. Since we Conservatives don't believe these Leftist 
sources on other things, these critics ask, why should we believe them 
when they tell us that Nixon is a Liberal? Isn't this a trick to 
discredit Nixon in the eyes of Conservatives? These are good questions. 
However, we don't remember that the Establishment columnists, in their 
efforts to discredit such authentic Conservatives as Robert Taft, 
Joseph McCarthy, William Knowland, and Barry Goldwater, ever told us 
that these men were Liberals. We think it much more likely that these 
Insider pundits were being used as a transmission belt to carry the 
word to the Liberals that RMN really is O.K. after all. 

Another complaint regarding the article was that it did not guote 
Nixon himself sufficiently. After all, we were told, Nixon himself had 
covered many of the situations described, in his book, Six Crises. The 
author was asked why he didn't give Nixon's version of the story 
instead of someone else's. In 

his memoirs Nixon naturally indulged in a great deal of 
self justification and succumbed to the very human-tempta 
tion to leave out of his narrative some of the key facts, 
especially those that reflected no credit on him. This author's 
aim was merely to fill in the omissions. Conservatives would 
not blindly accept all the facts in an opus titled The True 
Story Of My Administration, by "Honest Lyndon" Johnson, 
and they should be just as critical of any other politician's 
recreation of his public life while he is still running for 
political office. The present book has quoted Mr. Nixon 
himself extensively many times, but we doubt if his 
defenders will like these quotations much better. 

We hope the reader will apply the same standards to the attackers 
of this book as to the book itself. Make them document their assertions 
against it. Make them document their conviction that there is no 
Council on Foreign Relations, and no interlocking web of elitist 
organizations forming a supra-government . Make them document their 
belief that the continual movement to the Left over nearly forty years 
has been mere coincidence. Make them document their denial that we have 
propped up the Communist world time after-time, and their insistence 
that it is just an accident that our foreign policy toward the 
Communists doesn't change from administration to administration. Make 
them document, too, their contention that Nixon has not really staffed 
his administration with more than one hundred CFR members. Don't let 

the obfuscators con you with nebulous dismissals of this book. 
Americans are destined for slavery unless the CFR Insiders and those 
who are controlled by them can be purged from the government. 

Five years ago, anyone who thought there was anything seriously 
wrong with America was ridiculed as an alarmist. Today, those who can't 
see that something is drastically amiss are targets for ridicule. Let's 
go on the offensive!